> LOL. You are really funny, Brian. I think you've shown your authoritarian
> and dogmatic tendencies rather nicely.
It is not authoritarian for me to say that you should leave the movement.
If I go to a gastroenterologist and he says I should have a colonoscopy, that is not authoritarian. I have his recommendation, but I am not being coerced into complying with it. Now, if a black bloc streams into the room and shoves the scope up my ass, that is authoritarian. I am not assmbling a black bloc to kick you out of anything, Chuck. I was expressing my wishes.
> I'm a threat because I say that
> there are many varieties of anarchism.
No, your ideas are a threat because they lean towards anti-intellectualism, anti-"workerism," and basically any type of anarchism besides traditional, historic, class struggle "red" anarchy (it didn't used to need to be called "red" anarchy because it was simply anarchy.)
I don't have a problem with dialogue and discussion. But misrepresentation? Yes.
There's still time to leave.
> Having computer factories
> and semiconductor plants is impossible in a decentralized, anarchist
> society that values freedom and a life that doesn't involve alienating
> labor.
This has yet to be shown. A top-down flow of power coupled with a bottom-up flow of responsibility (any traditional capitalist outfit in other words) may actually impede technological development. In our state-subsidized capitalist system, most technological development is oriented towards profitability as opposed to social/human need. Profitability and human need may coalesce, but often they don't. With profitability guiding technological development, instead of democratic mechanisms, technology would, it seems, be bound to be stunted in favor of elites, as opposed to the people. (There are exceptions but this is the general pattern).
Brian