It's tragically ironic that anarchists are so often scolded by condescending authoritarians for being "infantile," especially when we consider the historical context: no authoritarian regime has ever fostered the conditions necessary for genuine liberation. Are we really expected to believe that future authoritarian systems, following the same tired script, will succeed when every single one has historically exhibited a pattern of dismal failure and a litany of atrocities? Such a belief seems far more naive than the idealistic principles championed by anarchists.

The centralization of power in a single authority not only undermines individual autonomy but also infantilizes the very individuals it purports to protect. By relegating people to a subordinate status as dependents of the state, these systems strip them of agency and responsibility, suggesting that ordinary workers are incapable of making their own decisions. This dynamic adds another layer of irony to the common critique of anarchism, as it is the authoritarian structures that foster dependency, fear of change, and social and political immaturity. In stark contrast, the anarchist vision promotes a world grounded in self-sufficiency through mutual aid, freedom of association, and voluntary cooperation.

This section is pretty nakedly anti-Marxist, and again, I don't see why Deng is relevant here when this is against all branches of Marxism.