"Anarchists" write weird article defending anarchism for The Guardian

[ed miliband]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/18/anarchism-direct-action-student-protests?CMP=twt_gu

Hi, yeah, so we're anarchists which basically means that we want to roll back the state, a bit like the Conservatives, yeah, but actually not like them because they want to do it differently from us. We want co-operatives and stuff, like people running things, y'know, managers and workers together! Yeah, that sounds exactly like David Cameron's 'big society' but actually it isn't like that at all, no, it's an alternative to that... I mean, we want to mutualise banks! How radical is that!

... uh. CNTRL+F 'working class'...? No, nothing. Enough said, really. People moan about the public viewing anarchism as violent and dangerous, but the fact that it's so often seen as an idealistic theory based on vague notions of 'liberty', 'equality' and 'freedom' is far more concerning, and not making a single mention of class is a surefire way to reinforce this stereotype. They've managed to make anarchism sound like something the Liberal Democrats could agree on.

[devoration1]

This is because anarchism is not a homogenous tendency. Class struggle, internationalist anarchists/libertarian communists oppose the idealistic, mutualist, liberal, etc branches of anarchism, and work from a legitimate class analysis.

There are a number of anarchists who are indistinguishable from typical liberals, or typical Trotskyists- along with anarchists who are indistinguishable from militant communists.

[scarletghoul]

This is because anarchism is not a homogenous tendency. Class struggle, internationalist anarchists/libertarian communists oppose the idealistic, mutualist, liberal, etc branches of anarchism, and work from a legitimate class analysis.

There are a number of anarchists who are indistinguishable from typical liberals, or typical Trotskyists- along with anarchists who are indistinguishable from militant communists.
This is true, though its important to remember that liberal/capitalist/whatever anarchists' ideas can never lead to a functioning Anarchy, because they won't challenge the class system. Only communists have the correct ideology to eliminate hierarchy, including class as well as state. Sooo objectively only the anarchocommunists can be counted as anarchist

[Dimentio]

Actually, a pretty good article.

[ed miliband]

Actually, a pretty good article.

In what way?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

That article was a little cringey. All the references to co-operatives.

I agree with Aufkleben, they don't mention the class struggle.

[Robocommie]

This whole "class" thing is really a bit overrated, really.

[Zanthorus]

Their group name, 'Anarchist Studies Network', might explain a bit.

[Dimentio]

In what way?

It is easy to follow, and is explaining anarchism in a way that non-leftist people could possibly understand it better.

[Steve_j]

Looks to me like they were trying to put forth their views in a way that common people might be able to understand without quoting numerous bearded old men and screaming "bash the rich!"

Given that the press portrays anarchists as hooded thugs hell bent on destruction, i think its quite refreshing to see some anarchists using the main stream press to try and improve anarchisms image a little.

[Ernesto "Che" Guevara]

To be fair, this is The Guardian we're talking about. Most of its readership are Liberal Democrats, and the article may have helped show them how the only way to actually act on their values is to go far further than just PR and equalised constituencies. Whenever anyone talks about class on Comment is Free, they get inundated with the Tory trolls from the Mail complaining.

I thought it was alright, and definitely an interesting departure from the usual Guardianista line. Wonder if it made the print edition.

[Wanted Man]

Looks to me like they were trying to put forth their views in a way that common people might be able to understand without quoting numerous bearded old men and screaming "bash the rich!"

Given that the press portrays anarchists as hooded thugs hell bent on destruction, i think its quite refreshing to see some anarchists using the main stream press to try and improve anarchisms image a little.

Eh what? :confused: I don't think anyone has a problem with the idea of accessibility, but what does that have to do with this article? Normally, any article by "revolutionaries" ignoring class-struggle and backing class collaboration would be rightly laughed away on this forum, as indeed it is in the OP of this thread. But I get a pass if I get my class-collaborationist stuff published in a national newspaper? :-/

Anyway, their website makes it look as if they're not an anarchist group, but rather a group of academics studying anarchism. The two can overlap, of course; but just like in many forms of "academic marxism", this kind of "study" can also be used for co-optation until it no longer really threatens capitalism.

This post was collectively written but does not necessarily reflect a consensus view.

[Steve_j]

Normally, any article by "revolutionaries" ignoring class-struggle and backing class collaboration would be rightly laughed away on this forum, as indeed it is in the OP of this thread.
Class collaboration? Where?

Sure its not a great article, and the childishness wont apeal to those on this board but it is not intended for us or this board. But it is intended for the majority of the population who hold anarchism in a very poor light. Obviously this is not up to your standards so shall we send to authors to the gulag now? Or torture a confession out of them first?

[Jazzratt]

Sure its not a great article, and the childishness wont apeal to those on this board but it is not intended for us or this board. But it is intended for the majority of the population who hold anarchism in a very poor light. Obviously this is not up to your standards so shall we send to authors to the gulag now? Or torture a confession out of them first? The thing is that they're trying to make it appeal to the majority of the population by disguising anarchism as something it's not. It makes us sound like particularly militant liberals, and does nothing to inform people of what anarchism is. Articles like this have to mention things like class struggle, like active resistance for the sake, if nothing else, of accuracy.

[NGNM85]

It isn't what I would have written, by and large, but, it covers a number of the major points. I would have used different language, and elaborated some more, but I have no major objection to this piece.

[Steve_j]

Articles like this have to mention things like class struggle, like active resistance for the sake, if nothing else, of accuracy.

Yeah i agree with that comming from a class struggle perspective, but these anarchists apear more influenced by the likes of proudhon and mutalism than bakunin and class struggle. Although i dont favour their position atleast they have taken the initiative to utilise mainstream media in an attempt to defend it from the media witch hunts which are so common in the UK. Credit where credit is due.

I know both solfed and afed put out press statements, if they had actually sent it to the mainstream press where they would have the opportunity to reach and influence the views of people who hold anarchism in such a negative light (as opposed to just leaving it in sympathetic circles like indymedia) i dont know.

Rather than shitting on those that have made the effort and taken advantage of the situation i think we should be asking why didnt we?

[Dimentio]

The thing is that they're trying to make it appeal to the majority of the population by disguising anarchism as something it's not. It makes us sound like particularly militant liberals, and does nothing to inform people of what anarchism is. Articles like this have to mention things like class struggle, like active resistance for the sake, if nothing else, of accuracy.

People in Sweden don't like the term class struggle. And you don't need to mention the term to conduct the term. I don't think the term "class struggle" was heard in the first French Revolution.

[Wanted Man]

Class collaboration? Where?

Sure its not a great article, and the childishness wont apeal to those on this board but it is not intended for us or this board. But it is intended for the majority of the population who hold anarchism in a very poor light. Obviously this is not up to your standards so shall we send to authors to the gulag now? Or torture a confession out of them first?

Workers and bosses working together in harmony for the common good.


It isn't what I would have written, by and large, but, it covers a number of the major points. I would have used different language, and elaborated some more, but I have no major objection to this piece.

Workers and bosses working together in harmony for the common good.

This post was collectively written but does not necessarily reflect a consensus view.

[revolution inaction]

People in Sweden don't like the term class struggle. And you don't need to mention the term to conduct the term. I don't think the term "class struggle" was heard in the first French Revolution.

you can talk about class struggle with out saying class struggle, but this artical does not do that.

[The Idler]

Their group name, 'Anarchist Studies Network', might explain a bit.
Anarchist Studies Network is an MI5 front, hence why they're able to get an wet article in a national newspaper.

[ed miliband]

What use would the MI5 have in making anarchism sound like a fairly harmless, dreamy doctrine?

[Zanthorus]

Anarchist Studies Network is an MI5 front, hence why they're able to get an wet article in a national newspaper.

:blink:

Serious?

[La Comédie Noire]

You guys really need to have a meeting.

[Steve_j]

Workers and bosses working together in harmony for the common good.

Fair call, missed that one.

[Dimentio]

you can talk about class struggle with out saying class struggle, but this artical does not do that.

What does it matter? What is important is what you do, not what you say. If you build up a self-sustaining structure, you will eventually support class struggle against the powers that be.

[Ovi]

Workers and bosses working together in harmony for the common good.

They didn't say that today's managers should work with workers while keeping their position.

More widely, couldn't we radicalise the co-operative model and have all companies democratically owned and run by managers and workers?
How is a company democratically owned and run supposed to be class collaborationist? The article does mention they are against substituting one boss for another. Oh yeah, I forgot; not mentioning expressions such as working class, bourgeois, class struggle, counterrevolutionaries, liberals, reactionaries and such in every single paragraph does a disservice to us. The communist jargon is a must for people to understand us. It worked so well so far.

[revolution inaction]

What does it matter? What is important is what you do, not what you say. If you build up a self-sustaining structure, you will eventually support class struggle against the powers that be.

if you are talking about anarchism and what people can do the its kind of fundamental.
Theres no point talking about anarchism if you ignore the most basic stuff.

[revolution inaction]

They didn't say that today's managers should work with workers while keeping their position.

How is a company democratically owned and run supposed to be class collaborationist?

it assumes managers would still exists and ignores the fact that cooperatives are subject to the same pressures as normal capitalist businesses, it identifies the problems with the banks not capitalism and suggests mutalising the banks, which is simply reformism and is not going to happen and if they understood class they would know this.

[Dimentio]

if you are talking about anarchism and what people can do the its kind of fundamental.
Theres no point talking about anarchism if you ignore the most basic stuff.

I believe it could be detrimental to talk about class struggle.

I mean, you are openly declaring that you want to overthrow society.

Say that we have two thieves in a town.

The first one walks around the street with a knife, rambling that he wants to steal the possessions of the people walking around.

The other one gives people flowers, is going dressed in a neat costume and offers himself to borrow people's cameras to steal them.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Looks to me like they were trying to put forth their views in a way that common people might be able to understand without quoting numerous bearded old men and screaming "bash the rich!"

Given that the press portrays anarchists as hooded thugs hell bent on destruction, i think its quite refreshing to see some anarchists using the main stream press to try and improve anarchisms image a little.

Given, I feel like most "common people" are alright with the idea of bashing the rich, and further, see themselves in the hooded thugs smashing shit up. Many common people would love to hurt cops or attack banks, and simply lack confidence in their ability to do so. Rather than cleaning up anarchists' image, we ought to aim to see it dragged further through the mud.

[revolution inaction]

I believe it could be detrimental to talk about class struggle.

I mean, you are openly declaring that you want to overthrow society.

Say that we have two thieves in a town.

The first one walks around the street with a knife, rambling that he wants to steal the possessions of the people walking around.

The other one gives people flowers, is going dressed in a neat costume and offers himself to borrow people's cameras to steal them.

you can't con people into revolution, revolution has to be a conscious act of the workers, it is not voting in an election, it is not a policy implemeted by the government, its not a coup, it is class war carried to its logical conclusion.

We do not succeed at it by convincing everyone we are nice, harmless liberals. If the convince people that anarchism is some form of liberal reformism and then as a result they decide they want to be anarchist then what they will become is liberals, and we will achieve nothing.

What we need is for people to engage in class struggle, we need to convince them that destroying our current society is a good idea and something they want to take part in.

[Enragé]

i think first we have to convince people we are valuable in working together with, that our ideas have a basic truth to them. Then, we will undoubtedly come into conflict with the state and the business elite. At that point, we can more aptly put forward the idea of revolution, than right now.

That does not mean, ofcourse, that revolution should have no place in our propaganda right now. Its just that, its rather out of place. Ofcourse, we can all agree that revolution IS necessary, however, materially and 'inter-subjectively' the possibility is simply not there (yet), and we dont make it suddenly come into life by just shouting revolution a thousand times. We have to fight together with people on whatever they're willing to fight for, thats in the end on a collision course with state and market.

[The Idler]

:blink:

Serious?"The Anarchist Studies Network is based at a UK university (Loughborough) that is a fully paid-up outpost of the military industrial complex. We went along to 'feel the force', as they all looked (in vain) for Proudhon's Dental Record. It may be anarchism, but not as Bakunin or Kropotkin knew it...Speculation the next ASN Conference is to be held at Guantanamo Bay University is untrue...Though if the price is right, & funding model viable....who knows?" - Borderland Issue 9 (http://borderland.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=187%3Aissue9&catid=43%3Aissues&Itemid=1)

[Wanted Man]

They didn't say that today's managers should work with workers while keeping their position.

They did not indicate any clear breach with them, either. They just indicated that there should be harmony between workers and bosses.

Funny how right-opportunism is sometimes the most prevalent among "ultra-left" anarchists.

[revolution inaction]

"The Anarchist Studies Network is based at a UK university (Loughborough) that is a fully paid-up outpost of the military industrial complex. We went along to 'feel the force', as they all looked (in vain) for Proudhon's Dental Record. It may be anarchism, but not as Bakunin or Kropotkin knew it...Speculation the next ASN Conference is to be held at Guantanamo Bay University is untrue...Though if the price is right, & funding model viable....who knows?" - Borderland Issue 9 (http://borderland.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=187%3Aissue9&catid=43%3Aissues&Itemid=1)

that is not evidence that they are run by mi5. knowing some anarchists i would be suprised if they are calling them "a fully paid-up outpost of the military industrial complex" simplaly because they work at universities



They did not indicate any clear breach with them, either. They just indicated that there should be harmony between workers and bosses.

Funny how right-opportunism is sometimes the most prevalent among "ultra-left" anarchists.

the writer was clearly a leftist anarchist not a ultra left one.

[bricolage]

I've been told the article was written by a scholar of Proudhon which explains a lot. It's not a very good piece at all but as for all this MI5 talk, that is just ridiculous. I know two people who are in ASN, one is a member of the AF and the other is mainly involved in anti-militarism activism, neither of them are spies. Other members seem to range massively from Noam Chomsky to an Ordinand of the Church of England. I thought one of either Todd May or Saul Newman of post-structuralist anarchism fame were in it but a look at the website seems to say differently.

[Wanted Man]

the writer was clearly a leftist anarchist not a ultra left one.

I mean anarchists in general, who are "ultra-left" as opposed to other "revolutionaries".

Anyway, it's absolutely true what people say, that actions speak louder than words, and that class struggle in practice is important. But I don't think these people understand how practice and theory are linked.

It is true that practice takes the primary position in our way of thinking; but that practice also informs our theoretical concepts. We have theories of anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc. because people participated and experimented in class struggle, developed theories on this practice, etc. Some bearded German guy once said something about the need to change the world, rather than just interpreting it. If he had avoided this participation and experimentation at all costs, and stayed inside his ivory tower, his theories would be worth less than shit.

What comrades in this thread are struggling with is that they do start at the right place; they start with practice. But they don't take the next step to deepen their knowledge and get a comprehensive view of their subject (anarchism in this case).

I'd say that this is pretty important to understand. Otherwise, people think only in the short term: "If we say that anarchism can mean workers collaborating with bosses for mutual benefit, anarchism will look more attractive to the left-liberal media, therefore we should say it." That line of thought is a consequence of denigrating the idea of having any kind of theory, not setting aims for oneself, but only worrying about the immediate benefit: "I'm in group X and I want group X to be appealing in the media; we'll sort out the rest later".

The ultimate consequence of this way of thinking is basically right-opportunism. In this case manifesting itself as revolutionaries being so worried about appealing to polite society that they actually end up lagging behind the masses in practice, because when they look at bourgeois ideology, they can't be arsed with removing the veil and fighting it; they just take it at face value, even if they can't actually see its face.

Actions speak louder than words, but how do you come up with the right words to describe your actions, allowing you to perform more good actions in the future? Sorry for rambling on.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Class analysis is viewed by many of the members to be old fashioned and used by those who wish to paint a picture of a utopian society. Indeed the lines between the "working class" and the "middle class" are no longer so defined. I personally feel its good that anarchists are trying to reach out to weaker sections of the left such as centre-left social liberalism which include the Guardianista readers (many of whom are likely to be "middle class" themselves) and avoid using 19th Century style class analysis.

[Zanthorus]

Class analysis is viewed by many of the members to be old fashioned and used by those who wish to paint a picture of a utopian society. Indeed the lines between the "working class" and the "middle class" are no longer so defined. I personally feel its good that anarchists are trying to reach out to weaker sections of the left such as centre-left social liberalism which include the Guardianista readers (many of whom are likely to be "middle class" themselves) and avoid using 19th Century style class analysis.

'You think the world is made up of 'atoms'? That's like, so 3rd century BC.'

[Wanted Man]

Class analysis is viewed by many of the members to be old fashioned and used by those who wish to paint a picture of a utopian society. Indeed the lines between the "working class" and the "middle class" are no longer so defined. I personally feel its good that anarchists are trying to reach out to weaker sections of the left such as centre-left social liberalism which include the Guardianista readers (many of whom are likely to be "middle class" themselves) and avoid using 19th Century style class analysis.

The obvious answer here is that people don't just practice class analysis because it's nice and quaint, but because it's central to what we do.

It's all well and good to try and reach out to groups that we don't normally reach, but what's the point when you just pretend to be like them (them = middle-class liberals)?

At some point, you'll end up having to make political choices. At that point, you can decide to stop being anarchist or communist, and become social-liberal in both theory and practice, but that would kind of defeat the point of trying to turn liberals into anarchists. Or you'll have to eventually own up to your liberal friends that you've been lying to them all along and tell them what anarchism is really about; what kind of reason will they have to stick with you then?

Practice shows that most "radicals" who try to appeal to liberals end up as liberals themselves.

[Burn A Flag]

Ok, this is an article in The Guardian it's not exactly leftist. It's a good thing in my opinion that they left out leftist rhetoric like bourgeois, counterrevolutionary, class struggle, etc. Honestly, most people are not even going to know what these terms mean, and most of the rest are going to be like ugh. Sounding less dogmatic is a good thing. Look at how Christianity gains converts/followers now a days: They have taken on a newer approach in the USA at least. They try to enfranchise the youth and appeal to everyone with popular media and culture. But it's when these people get dogmatic that their opponents/ implicit rejectors reject their message.

You need to ease people into a leftist mindet instead of just thrusting all these terms that make us look dogmatic and archaic.

[Rakhmetov]

Typical anarchist "arguments." That article said something without really saying anything--- that's the hallmark of modern day politicians. :thumbdown:

[Burn A Flag]

Well I think they were just trying to spread a bit of info about anarchism. It can't hurt.

[Wanted Man]

Ok, this is an article in The Guardian it's not exactly leftist. It's a good thing in my opinion that they left out leftist rhetoric like bourgeois, counterrevolutionary, class struggle, etc. Honestly, most people are not even going to know what these terms mean, and most of the rest are going to be like ugh. Sounding less dogmatic is a good thing. Look at how Christianity gains converts/followers now a days: They have taken on a newer approach in the USA at least. They try to enfranchise the youth and appeal to everyone with popular media and culture. But it's when these people get dogmatic that their opponents/ implicit rejectors reject their message.

You need to ease people into a leftist mindet instead of just thrusting all these terms that make us look dogmatic and archaic.

I love how half of all the anarchists on Revleft suddenly turn into giant opportunists when they get the chance of getting semi-positive coverage in the liberal media, even if it completely misrepresents anarchism. They just want to be loved by the bosses, bless them. :)

The reality is that it's extremely easy to package the essence of communism or anarchism in everyday language, without any kind of archaic terms. The Guardian article doesn't make any attempt at this, however. It just completely twists anarchism into liberalism. What it basically says to workers is: "In the way anarchists envision society, the bosses are your friends."

But I suppose "bosses" and "workers" are also archaic terms. After all, the working-class doesn't really exist any more. Aren't we all middle-class now? None of this contradicts anarchism and communism in any way, of course. We're still hard core, but we just need to convert the Guardianistas! :rolleyes:

EDIT: I think I incorrectly identified the person as an anarchist. Sorry. Guess this shows that anyone is capable of the lowest kind of opportunism.

[syndicat]

the article was apparently written from the point of view of cooperativist anarchists. even from that point of view, tho, it's misleading to talk of "workers and managers" working together to run some business. Authentic self-management means there aren't bosses, tho the workers may have an elected coordinating committee or people elected to do specific tasks. they don't say anything about how an anarchist society would come into being. that's not likely without a revolutionary transformation of society.

i think that requires the development of a grassroots, militant, anti-capitalist workers movement. but that just says I don't agree with them.

on the other hand, there are cooperativist anarchists, so why shouldn't they try to get their views into the mainstream press? altho most anarchists wouldn't agree with their vision of cooperatives or their approach, it is to the advantage of anarchists to have people counter the media stererotype of anarchists as dangerous terrorists, promoted by the security forces of the state (such as the FBI).

and the article is written in an accessible manner. and that is a virtue even if one doesn't agree with the content.

[Ravachol]

Ok, this is an article in The Guardian it's not exactly leftist. It's a good thing in my opinion that they left out leftist rhetoric like bourgeois, counterrevolutionary, class struggle, etc.


No, it's not a good thing. Jargon doesn't have to be used everywhere but a piece on the fundamentally opposed interests of bosses and workers is clear enough without losing the essence of class struggle anarchism.



Honestly, most people are not even going to know what these terms mean, and most of the rest are going to be like ugh.


This assumes people are convinced by words and ideas at all. If a worker reads that his interests are opposed to those of the bosses in some article in the Guardian that isn't going to change shit.

All words are impotent if seperated from actions, the very fact we have a decent ammount of freedom of speech only goes to show how little this system feels threatened. It is the circulation of practice that forms the core of struggle, not idealist preaching.


Well I think they were just trying to spread a bit of info about anarchism. It can't hurt.

The thing is that the piece isn't about Anarchism at all.

Let us take a look at the piece:



The Con-Dem alliance is looking to roll back the state. Anarchists want this too, but the government is looking to roll back the state and let business take up the slack, thereby bringing a fictitious "free market" into every last recess of our lives.


The con-dem alliance isn't looking to roll back the state at all. The state, as understood by most of the Anarchist tradition, isn't limited to the judical-politional-parliamentary apparatus. The entire diffuse network of manegerial and disciplinary power relations extending over the 'public' domain is the State. One could even claim that the State isn't so much an entity as it is a certain logic leading to a set of practices.

When conservatives seek to 'roll back the state', they don't 'roll back the state', they merely integrate it even further within Capital. Privatising the police (an extreme example, yes.) isn't 'rolling back the state' and neither is privatising education. The logic and structural functionality of the given institutions remains the same.

Anarchism doesn't seek to 'roll back the state', it seeks to obliterate it. Just as it seeks to obliterate Capital and any other form of authority and dominance.



What about genuine collective worker ownership of industry and services; what about universities democratically run by academics, students and support staff, instead of largely unaccountable and overpaid managers and technocrats?


Disregarding my criticism of the very structure of the university as a part of the state and it's reproductive machinery, I can identify with this to a certain degree. However, they then go on:



More widely, couldn't we radicalise the co-operative model and have all companies democratically owned and run by managers and workers? Couldn't we expand and federate worker co-ops, mutuals and collectives?


Which is basically decentralised corporatism, it's grassroots class collaboration.



Wouldn't it make more sense to start by mutualising the banks?


Sounds more like Kautskyist social-democracy than Anarchism to me. I say, down with the banks, down with all of Capital's structures. Let us take from them what we need for our own order and to hell with everything else.



But I suppose "bosses" and "workers" are also archaic terms. After all, the working-class doesn't really exist any more. Aren't we all middle-class now? None of this contradicts anarchism and communism in any way, of course.


Even if one dismisses Class and takes a completely moralist/idealist approach to Anarchism (which would be ridiculous to say the least), the ethical difference between being a worker and being a boss is obvious. A boss is always just that: a boss, someone who exercises power asymetrically in a forced fashion, something anathema to the core of Anarchism.

[black magick hustla]

there is a lot of garbage in academic anarchism. i remember arguing in a university "lecture" made by a tenured anarchist professor that the zapatistas are not anarchists. that they have their own project and their own goals and the westerners trying to paint them as anarchists are trying to make em seem like they are so totally in the same team yo (gotta have some brown cred). then he said that what i am talking about is old outdated anarchism.:rolleyes: and that anarchist intellectuals dont write about anymore. first, most serious anarchist militants dont read contemporary anarchist "intellectuals", they read particular publications written a lot of the times by anonymous workers. who are the contemporary intellectuals anyway. holloway? wayne price? chomsky?. nobody reads that shit except americans

[Pierre.Laporte]

I think it could be beneficial. Yes, it left out a few points. But by in large it was written to appeal to the majority. I think if it was to be written in a sensationalist manner, it would turn off a lot of people to radical ideas and they would just discredit it (like always).

That's not to say we have to sell ourselves out. We just have to recognize who we're trying to appeal to hook them in to the anarchist alternative.

[Desperado]

They've just taken account of their audience, and pointed out the facts in a way a Guardian reader would understand. It might seem obvious to us, but most people don't understand that it's not just government versus free markets.

[Tankred]

Wouldn't have been how I would have written an article about anarchism. Too "wishy-washy" for my tastes. The closing paragraph wasn't too bad, though.