i can agree with criticisms of blunt insuractionism, as op might be arguing for, but insuratctionary anarchism is only one strand out of many.

many anarchists are building horizontal organisations, and mutual aide and governance networks, to re-empower lower classes and build the better society in the here and now.

of course these anarchists can also be considered socialist, but i think in contrast to other socialist, they do not centralize and do not build hierarchies, making it less likely for their achievenments to regress into systems of domination or be coopted (into for example embracing the electoral system)

i think it's a mistake to dismiss anarchism in its entirety