The 'actual definition' thalycine describes is def1B mentioned in that dictionary reference; "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority", because it suits his buddy's definition, as opposed to 1a and 1c which are alot less politically loaded. It's this definition, the sid vicious type of anarchist, that is used to discredit more traditional arachism. I highly doubt that early anachist thinkers had in mind violent lawlessness and gutterpunks. Maybe Thalycine knows a few of these people, which is how he is privy to the 'real' definition. For him to suggest that the circle a definition is a "self-defined modernist definition" is just plain wrong. Circle A shouldn't be ashamed to use the word Anarchist to describe themself just because it's been co-opted by a-holes and redefined by the elite as dangerous. That would just be letting the terrorists win!


This whole argument is like arguing over philosophical communism vs practiced communism (soviet union, china, etc.) - which was in fact more of a state capitalism. It's a useless exercise. Even though the Soviets described themselves as communists, they weren't, but capitalists will always be able to point to them to discredit communism, even though it's never really been tried on a large scale.

And really, circleA make great looking bikes. And that's what we should get back to.