Just because they're propped up by your tax money is no reason to believe that they are managed with even a semblance of ability.

I have as much confidence in government managers as I do corporate ones.

That is to say, little at best.

It's just more wishy-washy sentimentalism, giving what was a very conflicted and volatile situation the "Crash" treatment.

Moreover, it's important to recognize that anarchists aren't just one lumpen movement. There are a lot of different agendas and ideas. There's no real cohesion, I mean, it's called anarchy for a reason! More often than not anarchists are arguing with each other over definitions and ideas than they are liberals or other such statists.

As Andrew said, there were a lot of people who didn't agree with violence and especially with random attacks on civilians.

Some of the best and most compelling critiques of hierarchies and the flaws of centralized power have been made by anti-statists. Let's not throw all these ideas out just because some people think it's a good idea to break stuff to express themselves.

I will, however, note that there wasn't nearly as much coverage of how the police reacted to the actions of a bunch of idiots breaking some windows. Massive force, teargassing, huge arrests of people who had nothing to do with it, brutality by the bucketload, illegal detainment and all that other fun state violence stuff.

Keep things in perspective. How many people have anarchists ever killed in the US? How many people die every day thanks to a bureaucratic mess that is state power?

As to your comments about trying to bring them in from the outside, thanks but no thanks. We've seen what it costs to "work in the system". When your aims are the complete destruction of abstracted power and the end of capitalism as we know it, you can't really go through the usual channels.

Well that's the inherent problem of dealing with all political concepts isn't it? If enough people believe it, it becomes the reality. If enough people believe that the guy in a suit on TV is President, then he is. It's not like biology where if you believe really hard in breathing underwater, you'll still drown. I suppose we could all just ignore it, but the reality is that a lot of people do believe in the state and to turn them away from it you have to refer to their object of attention. I suppose you could ask if an atheist is inherently religious if they refer to God in an argument.

It's true, as an anarchist I or many of my compatriots could move to the boondocks. And a few do. The central issue is that we wish to transform a majority human life for the better. Moreover, most of us believe that without a radical restructuring of our political and economic processes humanity is largely screwed. I suppose the same question could be asked as to why the American Revolutionaries didn't just move west instead of bloodily fighting the English.

Personally, I want to try and spread the word as to what anarchism can be. Not just bloody nihlism, but also love, equality and freedom. Sounds pie in the sky and I'll probably never see it come about in my lifetime (barring some awful catastrophe), but I believe it's a goal worth fighting for.

I don't really know what this is all in aid of cabdriver. I'm not a violent anarchist, nor do I subscribe to the idea of "propaganda by the deed", or even violent protests. To be honest I personally think most street actions are a waste of time and energy that could be better directed towards local productive action. (Wishy washy perhaps, but I'm thinking working with the poor, providing aid and offering self-empowerment to those who are interested or in need.)

I also fail to see how any manner of social organization, anarchist or otherwise, can be compromised by both working on the nitty-gritty of day to day existence and the conceptualization of long-term ideas. Surely we all think of the future, whatever our beliefs. I recognize that immediate rebellion is an impossible and frankly immature idea. Yet I also think that our current state of being is not the best that humanity is capable of. I believe (this is a faith thing of course), that human beings can learn to exist in a more inclusive, collective and much less violent, short-sighted and frankly stupid fashion.

The idea that there is some form of "authentic" anarchism is a pretty silly one in my opinion. Semantics and definitions are one of the favorite games of anti-statists. Unfortunately, (or perhaps fortunately), there isn't a set definition for what constitutes it's tenants. Therefore a rambling psychotic such as The Joker can claim to be an anarchist, as well as George Carlin, Alan Moore etc etc. Your idea for what is an authentic anarchist is valid of course, but it's as valid as my idea of what one is.

The issue arises from the inherent "shagginess" of the idea of anarchism. Are we rejecting ALL hierarchies? What about the family unit? Our pets? Relationships? What even constitutes an "anarchist"? Does Ron Paul owe something to anarchism? It's a sticky issue. The word is pretty unwieldy and of course is nowadays a pretty misunderstood term, with a hell of a lot of baggage on it.