Yes, Guest, my definition leaves room for capitalist acts, but not because I'm clever, but because I don't think that anarchism rules out anything. In an an'-archist area should there be rules regulating capitalist acts between consenting adults? Will a congress or politboro decide just what certain straight and gay acts are legal, and just how much they cost? If kids make and sell lemonade for a profit to buy soccer shirts, is that much different from their parents buying large quantities of fruits and vegetables at large-quantity prices and then selling them for a higher price at a market, rerwarding their time and energy? Then they might buy some meat at a retailer with the exchange of money that they made, and they might even save a little profit for an investment in a store or something. How would these free market activities violate the anarchist principle of "No rules, no rulers, no gods, no masters?" If you are equating "capitalism" with imperialism and welfare for the military-industrial establishment, of course I'm opposed to these statist activities, just as I'm opposed to statist Stalinism, but can't economic freedom and free markets exist along side communes, or even within communes, without violating the anarchist prohibition of rules and rulers? I agree with Proudhon that anarchism is the most humane and orderly political system, and also the most efficient system; and that guys like Cheney in the Good Old Boy network live in fear of true economic freedom because they know that their expertise in the realm of coercive and manipulative politics would be of no value, and that they would go bankrupt. Okay, I'll take a breath.

As long as you keep in mind that no one would be forced to recognize any form of currency (which is the one thing that keeps it alive anyway), then that's fine.

Observe, ladies and gentlemen, how being a hothead can get you into trouble. Here we have Mr. Palven emphatically declaring his belief that anarchism -- a social theory which by virtue of its very first syllable stands indelibly opposed to something -- is somehow opposed to nothing.

I can envision exceptions to the rule of no coercion where people in a community would not allow people to starve their children or abuse animals, but I certainly can't see how anyone would be forced to accept a particular currency or any particular medium of exchange. As apparerently the quintessential anarchist, Mr. guest, what is your opinion?

BTW Mr. guest, anarchism, by it's very definition, is opposed to something. An'archy means opposed to rules/rulers. But you were just funnin' me were't you. You already knew that! What a kidder!

That was his point...douche

Mr guest's joke was that he is the final arbiter of the meaning of the word anarchism.asshole. Anarchism is not opposed to, and doesn't try to regulate, human actions in general, and that's what I meant when I said that anarchists are not opposed to anything, and no one but a nitpicking academic or statist obstructionist saboteur would try to find fault with it. I have yet to see a single thing that Mr. guest has written that would further the cause of anarchism, the cause of freedom. Mr. guest originally said he is writing an assignment on anarchism. Who the fuck is he writing it for, Opus Dei? The CIA?

Coercive Hierarchies Im pretty sure that no matter who you ask in anarchist circles (other than ancaps) would say that not just nitpicking academics or statist obstructionist saboteurs.

And seriously? statist obstructionist saboteur?

Yeah, it sounds a little paranaoid, but take a look at his/her first post, and see if the other posts add up.