QUOTE
Stop sitting on the fence, J m HofMarN. Do you want Anarchy or not? Do you really think Anarchy would be best for this country?
For this country, that's debatable. For the world? Almost certainly. If a system of anarcho-syndicist or socialist communes were to replace the national government of the US we would no longer be able to wage war. That would prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world. And what kind of record does this government have of stopping terrorists or violence? tens of thousands of people die each year in the US from violent crime. In the rest of the world, even well armed nations, the figure doesn't top the hundreds. The US government, to date, has not prevented one single terrorist attack with their silly war on terror. In fact through instigating an open-ended war with Islam they have caused an unending state of conflict that will only harm American lower class and Iraqis while they reap the profits of war.
If you think I'm lying look at Boeing or Dow industrial or any of the other profiteers that supply the army. You think they're donating the bullets that tear apart Iraqi infants? You think they give Apache helictopters to the US and Zionist governments out of the kindness of their hearts or a general love for meaningless genocide? No the profits of Boeing and Macdonnel Douglas and Lockheed have all doubled since the war started, Boeing's even tripled.
QUOTE
Its odd that you would choose to align yourself with communists and socialists, seeing as how they support a particularly strong, centralised government. A socialist or a communist seems like s/he would represent everything an anarchist hates, a government that treats people like "widdul iddle biddle children kin, who cannot even tie their own shoes without aid from the government. Hate Hate Hate." Are you sure you aren't a Pinko, after all?
Well we bleed with them, march with them and break bread with them. What the hell, if they're pinkos than so am I. Even the most ill informed anarchist will tell you that the official authorities are not the whole problem. If we bag Bush corporate America has another candidate with the same credentials waiting to take his place. If Bush were able to commit genocide efficiently he'd get a second term but since he can't even administrate the rape of a small nation he's going to be booted from office, possibly even before november.
Back to my point though we're fighting the corporations too, they're just as big as the government and even more harmful. They don't even have a smidgen of respect for the poor in America or the will of the people. And guess who opposes the corporations most vocally: socialist and communist organizers. All three groups recognize that large corporations pose a tremendous threat to the American public and that our government is unwilling to do anything about it. And besides, it takes guts to be a socialist or communist, guts and some zeal and those are two things that I for one admire.
"I'm getting the feeling this is a political strategy for you, and not what you really believe. It seems like what you actually believe is that we should have a non oppressive government, and you think that by pretending to be an Anarchist, you can make such a government come to be."
Now imagine that, political strategy from an anarchist. It's most advantageous to let the powers that be think that, although even they are catching on. Anarchists are responsible for a lot more than you think. They involve themselves in local organizing, volunteer work with other progressive groups and there are various national means of communication between us.
I believe that people, for the most part, are good. And that those who are evil will eventually use whatever ruthless tactics they can to rise to power. That is why power should be as widely distributed as possible. This is the basic principle of anarchism. Small government, informed people. A government that is this large and is the world's only superpower is bound to grow more and more corrupt until it falls.
I think what you're missing in your argument, which I shall call "The Brownie Theory" of politics, is the significant factor in my argument, "The Peanut Butter Theory" of politics. You see, in your argumenet it is a simple supply and demand. You might well be able to get a brownie from someone else and so your friend is going to WANT to negotiate since he likely needs the money.
What I think I failed to properly impart is that my opposition in the peanut butter theory is quite happy. They control the bread and both kinds of peanut butter as well as the jelly they also have the milk. So if I ask for a sandwhich they can make whatever they want just about. It is the stated demand for a sandwhich sans crunchy peanut butter that is most likely to gain you a sandwhich without crunchy peanut butter, or at the very least something resembling a peanut butter sandwhich.
Making demands like this, opposing any and all restrictive government measures that aren't absolutely necessary and always pushing against the government's ideas when they are in error is what the other parties need to do if they want change. Communists and socialists, like anarchists, tried to do this and were thus completely excluded from the system. Don't you think it odd that in a country claiming to be a democracy a political party (the communists) have been almost entirely whiped out and driven underground since their heyday around the time of the great depression?
The three people's groups have no say in the government and would be ignored even if they did so we are forced to make our presence known in the streets. Anarchists can't do much on the national level without a strong national comittee but this sticking to our ideals has made us difficult to target which is why the movement is thriving. Even despite the lack of a national image we still do a great deal on the local scale even it the powers that be do hteir best to ignore it. I think anarchists deserve a greater respect from the left but because the left is shifting ever more to the right it seems unlikely.