>and to the person who amde the snide remark about "young
>anarchists", why is it assumed that anarchists are young?
I was that person. (I think. I may have missed another's comment.)
Nothing snide about it. At least, not intended to be so.
I used the adjective "youthful" because there are two very distinct classes of anarchists. (Chuck wrote a good post about this in this thread. Though he needn't "cringe".) I covered, as part of my job, many things anarchists dealt with about 10 years ago. (Neo-Nazi groups in Toronto.)
Found there were two largely distinct groups of anarchists, each equally idealist in some ways:
1) Older: Labor oriented. Left wing of labor movements, often fighting blue collar social conservatism.
2) Younger: Often quoting punk lyrics. Sure that if we could just "remove" the influence of power structures, there would flourish decentralized communities (and better radio).
Personally, I think the first kind is more realistic. They often come up with syndicalist forms of organization. The second group usually has some kind of lumpenprole approach.
But as I said on another list... anarchists are exemplar at action. I have no problem with anarchists.
Ken.
-- He couldn't figure out how to pour piss from a boot if the instructions where written on the heel.
-- Lyndon Johnson