2 corrections to the Catch-22 synopsis provided above:

in the brothel scene I sketched out above, the American wasn't a bomber pilot- he was a navigator. And the old man wasn't a "spetugenarian"- he was 107 years old.

(How could I have forgotten?)

I wrote a short letter regarding the mess in Seattle in 99 due to "anarchists" at the WTO rally. Contrary to what some around that scene thought then and still do, people being rounded up and put into holding pens does not reflect success and made all look like the crazies/terorists in masks throwing rocks.

After place my letter in the pile, I see the header was added to with the business of-"hey, it kinda worked in France."

Really not such a good thing if you ask me.

I see someone commented on the film about it and am sure it was romanzed b.s. as had not scene it. Still, that incident sd. be a warning how large demonstrations can turn into a big mess.

Any sort of advocating the use of violence/"bomb" the middle-class is simply stupid-unintentional or not. People and publications such as this need to be a lot more careful with the words they use.

So there is no misunderstandings, Violence, killing, blowing stuff/people up bad, not good, not an option. Anarchists stupid and organizations sd. be aware of their presence at meetings/rallies. Do not allow them to destroy your message, rally, efforts as was done in Seattle in 99 at the WTO meeting.

anarchist ... with wild eyes, wild hair, who throw (badly) a badly made bomb into a crowded cafe and succeeds only in killing a couple of people and wounding a few more ... an incompetent doufus, in other word ... and anachronistic portrait ... not too far removed from the "old" image of middle eastern terrorist, scuff, dirty, rude, crazed, etc.

... which went along with our generally racist attitudes to all arabs, muslims and all non-europeans as "not valuing life like we do" and capable of "ANYTING" (which as we have seen in our own behavior in Iraq, applies to equally) ...

We love our lone gunman and our crazed unibomber types ... we refuse to acknowledge that there are american policial prisoners. Democratic losses have increasingly marginalized progressive third parties. (The right has a number of third parties as well).

I was encouraged by the willingness to "get out there" that was shown in Seattle ... I've wondered many times how many of those in attendance are still politically active. I'm doubtful many swelled Obama's ranks ... I have no idea.

There are always "jokers" who take advantage of the anonymity of crowds to act badly -- break windows, spit at cops, etc. The danger is if they gain imitators or otherwise create confrontation (protesting loudly when arrested, staging improptu ill-advised sit-downs, etc.)

They exist in many groups ... particularly those with a large number of young men of a certain age and inclination ...

Thank god Elf seems to have realized the error of its ways.

in the Twin Cities demonstrations around the Republican convention I read that 200 "anarchists" in black balaclava to match their black attire marched as a unit formation in one of the demonstrations ...

I found that image chilling and off-putting -- brown shirts come to mind.

If I were a bystander it would both frighten and anger me, feeling that they were trying to intimidate me. Bad as nazi's bad as Klan -- and -- that they were cowards who would not show their face, would not own their politics.

During the civil rights movement, the American Nazi Party showed up regularly, but they always showed their faces.

Accessories are us.

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.

As long as they were against the people you claim to hate: Southerners, white people, Christians, Jews, Republicans, people with more than 3 kids, people who drive SUVs, midwesterners.

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.

Here's a suggestion for you, if you want find out some amazing, productive, creative ways to carry that out:

Go into business for yourself.

Be a businessman. Sideline issue advocacy- you don't have to abandon it forever, just put it aside for awhile (not really 100% doable anyway, truth to be told)- and work on the nitty gritty of daily existence and the conceptualization of long-term ideas by finding customers to serve, in return for a return on the goods and/or services you provide that approximates the value you add in the course of delivering them.

Dogmatically "anti-capitalist" anarchists don't seem to have any consciousness that there are all sorts of ways to do capitalism that are inherently non-hierarchal. They seem to think that the businessman always has the dominant hand in any business transaction that makes them a personal profit, and that customers/consumers are their submissive victims.

That only proves that they've never tried doing it themselves- a fact whose implications are typically completely lost on them. But a whole hella lotta people around them notice it- which is why so many of "the masses", "the public", have so little use for the ideological stances that they favor.

I'm serious. Figure out an idea to become an "independent" businessman, without swindling people. You'll find that it's a learning curve. You'll also find out that your "independence" is conditional on being dependent on keeping your customers satisfied. And there's a learning curve built in to that. Anarchically.

A successful business transaction doesn't just partake of abstract, idealistic concern for others- it actually accomplishes it. You're no longer simply thinking about communicating with strangers in your community, and doing favors for them- you're actually accomplishing it, as a set of practical tasks. Including meeting challenges that arise in the moment, which is the farthest thing from "alienated labor."

The world needs more honest business people. Always. I'd never call on you to jettison your idealism- but test it, too.

I'm just saying...give it a try. You might find yourself expressing "concern for others" in ways you never dreamed of. You'll find yourself lost in thought, thinking "how do I do this better?" Sincerely cooking up ways to impress the people who hold that non-hierarchical power (more of less, lol), "customer demand."

It isn't an effortless process. Even success has its traps. But even a condition of technocratic saturation affluence for many material wants is not going to make capitalism and enterpreneuralism obsolete.

And you can't abolish markets. It's like trying to abolish the atmosphere.

Another fun thing- not only does being a small "independent business person" of integrity "serve the community"- it partakes of a creative impulse that can be downright artistic. Individual flair can get you return business. And you don't have to turn into a megacorp. You're free to keep your own ambitions in check. If you find yourself getting too successful, you can always retire, lol. Or start something else from scratch.

And there's real freedom to be found in that. Last but not least, after a while, you can start getting back into doing some political activism again, with a hugely more developed set of social skills to pull it off. Nothing says you have to do it the corny way, by hiring some lobbyist to advance your venal private ends. Settling for cheapening your society like that is almost as lamebrained as perpetrating vainglorious acts of terrorism.