“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.