askchapo

I'm not disagreeing with the other responses but I would add a simpler explanation as well. Which is that everyone starts somewhere and there is no way to accomplish a total ideological shift in a single moment. So it is expected to find individuals who have undergone some change but it is inconsistent. And it's easier to make superficial changes so that would come first. Maybe stop there, if there is no pressure to continue.

I think a lot of people, they grow up in whatever their ideological context is, and at some point they realize it is not comprehensively ideal. Then when looking for a better way to be, will look for people who seem to share critiques and even have something resembling a plan, way forward, or vision for the future. Whatever those people are calling themselves becomes a label to associate with.

I think anarchism has had a bunch of moments over the past while where they seemed to be the people with their heads screwed on properly. Anarchists were prominent at Occupy, which whatever we say about it now, was formative for a generation of western leftists. Involved with the various attempts to reinvigorate the union movement, taking an outsider approach to avoid collaboration with capital. They have analysis to describe police and prisons that was highly salient to BLM. And then about the non-profit industrial complex that severely limited the efficacy of same. When Me Too happened, anarchists had a pre-existing body of thought on topics of consent and sexuality ready to roll. Anarchists have been associated with trans liberation and the best parts of the general LGBT movements. Antifa (ARA and similar) were anarchist-led projects for a long time and when nazis came crawling out, anarchists were the first ones advocating the previously-unspeakable position of physically beating them back. Anarchist positions about electoralism are extremely digestible to a populace who sees little point in participating in sham elections. The concept of Mutual Aid is of course from Kropotkin and has been a long standing anarchist tradition. Harm reduction, sex worker organizing, drug reform, polyamory are zones that anarchists are able to combine a libertarian streak with social consciousness which sets them apart from the craven individualists. This is just off the top of my head and not comprehensive.

On top of all that, basically all cities that support anything that could call itself a left have a few anarchist people and groups who've been plugging away over the decades, doing anti poverty, direct action casework, publications, social spaces, art projects, vegan and animal rights, food not bombs, running co-ops etc. So a lot of people have some fond idea of anarchists who helped them out, were willing to risk being confrontational when needed or throw a kick ass party. Whereas marxists were often seen to be embroiled in strange factional disputes, aggressively selling newspapers, pointlessly esoteric armchair philosophizing, entryism into dead-end institutions, giving long speeches, academic or professional activists careerism, or being weird cults.

Since there is no mass movement to easily join in any case, everything is done one at a time. Often interpersonally. Now by the influencer and social medias too. Considering how marginal anarchism actually is, so far in the 21st century, anarchist ideas have disproportionately massive reach. So a lot of people will be calling themselves anarchists if they have found any of the above influences to be positive.

To be a marxist, there is an implication that you'd have to read and be able to defend marx. And probably lenin, mao and even more than that. To be an anarchist, there is no specific test or qualification. And since it is widely understood that all kinds of ideologies are wanting to use the anarchist label, you can get the shine off whatever is amenable to you, while easily disregarding anything you don't like.

I don't think it's defensive. I think the impulse is to move away from the prior liberal consensus; which is good. Anarchists are well positioned to pitch their ideas to people with a wide array of grievances, while keeping demands low. So it is an adaptation. The path can go on to other things, or it can stop shortly. If we wish to promote a longer path, then the only way is to stop depending on individual initiative for ideological indoctrination. Require external motivation through structure and organization.