: I do not see why you are such a hater of authority.
I dont hate authority per se but I do not love it, in my own workplace, from my own experience, what is wrong with capitalism is that my boss can be as ill tempered, hateful and bossy as he likes because he has the power and I do not. Now increased welfarism etc. could give me the greater ability to challenge his will but why shouldnt I be allowed to organise my work myself and be included in the decision making process?
There are other examples of the problem that the present importance given to authority, including it's creation of rank and status which any consistant egalitarian would find a problem, creats socially, economically and politically at the 'macro' level and physiologically and psychoologically at the 'micro' level in the individual.
The Machoism and violent posturing of 'street corner boys' and thugs is largely a result of veneration of authority and combined with ultra competition that is facism or nazism.
It has been a scourge upon the workingclass I can tell you.
:History shows that there will always be a good government in those nations and civilizations that are to put their mark on world history.
Yes, I subscribe to the notion of Henry David Thoreau that I ask 'first for good government and then no government', however the government and 'top down' initiatives are weak and feeble when faced with a people in revolt or insurrection.
The state is just the ditch behind which are concelled the fortresses and earthworks of society.
:Anarchy is fascism in practice if you ask me, there is no legal system to protect the weak and there is no government to stake out the future and walk the road ahead.
If Anarchy is disorder and ultra violent competition then granted it is definitely, most definitely, a version of stateless facism and nazism, this is the credo of the US white power and Skinhead militias after all. However if Anarchy is a version of ultra organised society, that surpasses the government then what use is that government? The government can't provide security everywhere and everymoment and by and large either fufils a role of rich man's defence force (see seattle) or clears up after bad anarchy (that is murders and amoralism) but anarchism is everywhere and every moment, every individual convinced of their duty, responsibility and actions.
:This is a sad fact, but it is just the way it is in this world.
At present yes.
:We need our leaders.
Anarchism is not without leadership it has it's professors and theorists like anyone else but, apart from unfortunate instances like Bakunin's secret societies, it does not venerate them, it is rather a functionalism keep to a necessary minimum and striped, violently if necessary, of all pride and status.
:The anarchy-fascism we see today is covered behind its capitalist dream-system of illusion. Their pathetic products and so-called good democracy fools us all; they dirty our minds with their drugs, sexism and so on. This is pure anarchy - the rights of the strong are protected, while the weak are beaten upon.
Yes it is anarchy but is it an-archy, meaning literally no military rule/dictatorship. I dont advocate stateless disorder but I do think that the state as a form of socio-political organisation can be transformed, largely through reform but finally through revolution (the sort of revolution I envisage is a bloodless occupation of places like communication controls, police stations, military compounds by activists. If it's well planned enough it could be over in days without a shot being fired), into a structure and organisation reflecting more accurately libertarianism, egalitarianism, rationalism and moralism (the core socialist values).
: This is not what we want. We do not want the corporations to take over the functions of the state, by bribing our politicians, speaking of free trade and democracy as if they were saving gods. Nope, not for me. I do not want their feudal system.
What they are doing, what you are speaking of is not anarchism, it mascarades as anarchism, a lot, to try and gain any moral or ethical status it can from libertarianism (stalin did something similar trying to gain the good vibes associated with socialism) but it is the privatisation of the state and the creation of a privately owned command economy that they plan not an-archy.
: In my system there is a strong and good government to protect the weak and beat upon those who are trying to destroy for us all.
That is one way of thinking about it but why assign that role to a professional force or administration that can be easily bought off or privatised? Every individual behaving in this capacity at once would be unstoppable, I mean I recognise the differences in peoples capacities and preferences people might want to become officials for the protection of civil society and the individual, provided they are harbouring no malcontented hidden agenda (EG they're not a bunch of sadists and psychopaths) that's fine.
I respect what you are saying if the police where properly accountable, say with citizens councils or some such institute (we can experiment with organisation until we get it right, if our political wills and principals are correct we can not be bought off or defeat so we have nothing to fear from such a process), I might favour a form of zero tolerance policing.
:We are all equal.
Yes, we are all members of the Human Race.
:And we have to fight the evil circle of religion, politics and economy to achieve this goal.
The Machavellian Capitalists have combined religion, politics and economics quite successfully to construct a facade to comfort the rich and dishearten the opponent, one that suggests this is true all else is lies/propaganda/brainwashing (see Herbert Marcuses, 'One Dimensional Man') but it isnt true and a lot of the elements in the posionous mix dont even combine well at all (see my posts on Christianity and Capitalism).
:It will not be easy and certainly, some of the elements will have to stay.
The division between public and private life is important.