Gordon Fitch wrote:
>
>
I have two reasons. One is that these movements
> were very effective; the other is that they avoided the use
> of military force, which requires the incorporation and practice
> of the very things anarchists are trying to get rid of.
You apparently haven't read much 16th-19th century history. Capitalism was drenched in blood from its roots, both domestic slaughters and foreign wars. No mass slaughter, no capitalism, EVER.
And in respect to Christianity: a) it is debatable whether xtianity changed consciusness or whether it grew in response to the existence of consciousness otherwise generated and b) whether it could ever have become a dominant European religion without considerable violence.
Finally, Capitalism was _never_ a "movement" in any sense of that word remotely related to its current usage in respect to political/social movements. The only "movements" within early capitalism were movements AGAINST it (e.g. riots and revolts, bloodily suppressed, in 16th c. England.
Carrol