I'm curious... how do you reconcile this image of communism as "looney" with the fact that it keeps ending up associated with superpowers?

The former USSR and China are both pretty effective demonstrations that even if their way of life isn't to your taste, they clearly did SOMETHING right.

You've been led to believe this by people whose control over you would be lost if you developed a more sophisticated understanding of what you're talking about.

That's the way these wars are fought. If you can take advantage of mass media to create a multitude of crazy associations with a word, you can prevent people from uniting behind it.

So, you take Anarchy out of the realms of intellectual discourse by associating it with a weird guy in a black cape with a loony-tunes bomb and you'll create so much confusion that people will waste their time, unable to find each other. And heap on more associations, and more, and more, until the word is as communicative as a grunting noise.

You can use it for defense, too. Get yourself in a situation where your political organization, your nation, your religion and your race all use the same label, and no one will ever be able to criticize you because you can use rhetoric to twist your critics words and make them sound like an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution

I would suggest you read "The Conquest of Bread" for a different perspective on what anarchy means. It's available on Project Gutenberg for free

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/23428

When the anarchists took over in Europe, they continued to work the factories and maintain public services. They just administered their affairs through elections instead of property. It proved more efficient than its predecessors, but then the fascists kicked their ass because they didn't have the capacity to flow into a vertical heirarchy and gain the might that structure grants, then flow back into a flattened power structure once the threat was gone.

I spend a lot of time thinking about that flow, and how tyranny and destruction follow when it's interrupted, and how we might design political-economic structures to accomodate it better....

Anarchy doesn't really mean the elimination of rules or social order. It means direct democracy and the elimination of vertical hierarchy.

You're insane. And when I say that, I mean you've got a fundamental disconnect from reality.

If this "entity" was so harmful to human existence, evolution would have destroyed it and it's adherents long ago.
 
If you want to effect real change, you need to make things that are necessary but onerous obsolete, and that starts with acknowledging that the intrinsic value of those patterns you hate is so significant that it's been overcoming the objections of the unsophisticated since before you hit the scene. If you can't see the merit of what you're trying to replace, you'll never succeed in creating a replacement.
 
Cultures whose sense of outrage leads them to recoil from paying costs that are necessary quickly become extinct. Then, a hundred years later, when all traces of their failed efforts are erased, it's touted as "novel" and "progress".

Plus, he forgot the part about giving the girls birth control and the boys porn and video games.