The Anarchist Banker

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fernando-pessoa-anarchist-banke…

After a long relatable anecdote, and after some faulty logic, it concludes:

"One thing is then clear. In the present social situation, however well-intentioned a group of people might be, however concerned they all are with combating social fictions and working for freedom, it is not possible for such a group to work together without the spontaneous creation amongst them of a tyranny, a new tyranny, in addition to that of the existing social fictions; without destroying in practice everything they love in theory; without involuntarily standing in the way of the very thing they wish to promote. What can be done? It’s very simple. We should all work for the same end, but separately."

I agree with the implicit and explicit critique of organization and activism. But discarding group efforts entirely? I think people can also work for different ends, but together, as well as all the other combinations: working separately for different ends; not working, together or separately. Yet something rings true: if anarchists remain apart, they can ruin things for others, instead of for each other. The point is anarchists are very annoying, unrealistically demanding, and quarrelsome. Why do they insist on being so gregarious?