>>2831873>1. […] their analysis of exploitation has remained largely vague and general?Because exploitation is indeed vague and general. The form of exploitation that a woman endures in the first world is not the same as what an indian worker living in the slums of Dubaï endures. Meticulously defining exploitation as XYZ conditions leads to the possibility of your theory being made obsolete despite its kernel of truth.
>2. […] How do anarchists explain the origins and development of exploitation?Exploitation, broadly speaking, is simply when one individual is deprived of his agency, of potential self-realization, by external constraints imposed on him. This varies tremendously from which currents of anarchism you're interested in but the broad definition of exploitation under anarchism is closer to the concept of alienation from Marx than the economic definition of exploitation
>3. […] How would they address the claim that anarchism is just bourgeois individualism turned on its head?Bourgeois individualism occurs when a member of the bourgeoisie realizes his alienation but doesn't escape the categories inherent to his social position. Libertarians are an example of bourgeois individualism, because they understand that the state or other institutions can hinder their individuality but they fail to grasp that private ownership of the means of productions or money are also imposef categories. They fail to do so because they've integrated so deeply the illusion of money that they cannot escape it and come to mistake self-emancipation for maximizing wealth
>4. How do anarchists propose to organize and educate workers for class struggle while refusing participation in bourgeois political institutions?There's a difference between organizing to raise awareness and to commit political acts, and participating in bourgeois politics. In theory communists should have similar means of organizing because they shouldn't be participating in bourgeois politics. Anarchists usually have their own organizations and parties by which they vehiculate their messages
>5. How would anarchists respond to the observation that anarchism lacks a unified doctrine, elementary revolutionary teaching, or basic theory?That's because the word "anarchism" is an empty signifier. It's like saying "socialism". Of course there won't be a unified doctrine for "anarchism", but there is one for communalism, for anarcho-communism, for anarcho-primitivism etc.
>5. […] How do they view the historical fragmentation of the workers’ movement often attributed to anarchist influenceThank god anarchists did so because otherwise communism would only be known as the failed bureaucratic mess that was marxism-leninism. I don't think MLs actually understand how much they've fucked the movement lol
>6. How would anarchists avoid the charge that rejecting bourgeois politics in practice ends up subordinating the working class to bourgeois politicsI think that you're referencing a very specific type of anarchist methodology, popularized in the west, which consists essentially of "opting out" of society and to go live in the woods or something along the lines of that. This is not necessarily representative of the movement as a whole. Rojava and the Zapatistas didn't do this sort of actions, they were militarily trained and went around capturing cities. The sort of anarchism that you describe in the west occurs because class antagonisms are simply not that prevalent, to the point where a local population would willingly abandon the state for a new form of social organization. Therefore, it's not that opting out is the best strategy, but simply that given the material conditions in the west, you can't really declare war on the state without mass approval, which is something practically unfeasible to get.