I'm slightly annoyed when people use the additional thoughts section to pose even more questions. Maybe I should become accustomed to providing multiple answers?
I feel that it would be very silly to launch into an empirical argument over the minutiae of anarchist's resonance in the world around them. I can't see a definitive yes or no answer coming out of this as that would require a justification for our whole existence. Evidently something makes anarchism perennial, enduring, but it is doubtful that this is because of a frequency in revelatory experiences with revolt or "street politics". I, for one, did not become an anarchist because I was in an insurrection.
That the most prominent and enduring records of anarchists leading participation in revolts adhere to a timeline that preceded World War 2 may provide us a way of extracting knowledge from this stony problem. I roundly feel that the most explosive episodes of revolt in our epoch that were more likely to accommodate themselves for anarchists correlate with the disappearance of independent grounds for livelihoods during the compulsion of people into industrialism. The ability of people to immanently comprehend the estranged nature of proletarian life was greatly affected by that process. It was, and is, a twilight moment. That comprehension of a need for another way of life that is native in the minds of those who are in most need of it*—people possessed by natural forces speaking through them without the advanced instruction of others—may very well be gone in many places with the dominance of habituation to instruments of capital and the supremacy of bourgeois ideology. (*Rather than the untouchable "general public".) Time will tell.
Anarchists should be of two minds. Being uncompromisingly radical when we voice our demands as anarchists but also being patient and tolerant of the limitations of others in not exceeding the laws of this world with their ethical complaints.
“It is the unlooked for appearance of revolutionary ideas as emergent transitional states in ordinary circumstances, the sudden energising of latent and already existing potentials, which is so enticing in the present. This ‘channelling’ of revolutionary spirits, which ebbs and flows according to wider, external pressures, is a very different model of consciousness to that of Lilburne, whose theatre of transgression continues to this day as a sort of protestant-based activism/witnessing. It is to the falling quiet/bursting forth model we first discover in Walwyn that now forms the object of our study. Watching the ordinary, waiting for its singing.” —
“Stepan Petrichenko was himself a Ukrainian peasant. He later acknowledged that many of his fellow mutineers were peasants from the south, who were in sympathy with the peasant opposition movement against the Bolsheviks. In the words of Petrichenko: ‘When we returned home our parents asked us why we fought for the oppressors. That set us thinking.’” —
“The insistence on subjectivity testifies to the fact that proletarians have not yet succeeded in objectifying a revolutionary practice. When the revolution remains at the stage of desire, it is tempting to make desire into the pivot of the revolution.” —