“We are already practicing communism much of the time [in everyday exchanges and dealings with others]. We are already anarchists, or at least we act like anarchists, every time we come to understandings with one another that would not require physical threats as a means of enforcement. It’s not a question of building an entirely new society whole cloth. It’s a question of building on what we are already doing, expanding the zones of freedom, until freedom becomes the ultimate organizing principle.”

I have some familiarity with China, and this brought to mind the relationships I see there. Laws are largely ignored. Most important are personal relationships, and the capital of personal influence. It's a very troubled system. With personal agreements come personal disagreements, and without a framework that all parties turn to by default, solutions fall all over the map, and fairness is not a requisite. I don't buy into the caricatures of anarchism. However, I see humans as a species with predispositions, and as far as I understand anarchism, I haven't seen this most important factor addressed in a manner where most anarchists have a commonality in their view.

Personally, I think Capitalism eats democracy when it's not countered by other systems. The counter has traditionally been labor unions, art, a judiciary focused upon civil liberties, and freedom of the press. For a number of reasons, Capitalism has gotten the upper hand on, or appropriated these systems. I think OWS is right. However, being against something is just one step. To move forward, we must know what we are for. I don't see anarchism offering this in a manner that is clearly understood, or easy to pass on. Thus, it seems a philosophy of discontent. Until you can offer the disenfranchised clear answers to their questions, they will not be able to unite behind your cause. It's a pity, because IMO this type of critique is often dismissed as unsophisticated.

Judging from the amount of ink spilled in the 14 years since handfuls of anarchists smashed up some Seattle storefronts during a successful demonstration—an event attended by tens of thousands of non-window-smashing protestors—the only thing that surprises me more is the fact that US citizens have yet to erect a Ground Zero-sized memorial to those precious windows.

The word "anarchist" definitely comes with connotations. For me, it isn't of broken Seattle windows in storefronts but of punk rock music and concerts. The opposition of authority is what I always think of when I hear the word "anarchism." It reminds me of being a young skateboarder (unfortunately with zero skills) and taking grip-tape and making the anarchy symbol on my board.

As an adult, there are certainly aspects of that kid still present, but to adopt a world with no central authority does seem hard to fathom. What does a world ungoverned look like? Doesn't every circle need a center?