In his Reddit interview, Noam Chomsky devoted more than a third of his time to criticisms of anarchism. In particular, he focused on the movement's tendency to attack itself, stating that "there's very little coordination, a tremendous amount of sectarianism, and intolerance, mutual intolerance." Chomsky actively states that because of this fragmentation, one could even say that there IS no anarchist movement despite its numbers and widespread , if low-key support.



I most certainly agree with Professor Chomsky on the first point, that anarchism is fragmented, but I must disagree with the second point. On a philosophical level, there is a great deal of unity between the various factions, and I would assert that this philosophical unity is what causes this fragmentation in the first place.



To figure out the nature of this unity, one must simply look at the various schools of anarchism and perceive the thing that remains constant across all of them: the single-minded emphasis on destruction. Every one of them is focused on destroying the state, or capitalism, or the tyranny of tradition, and few if any of them have any provisions for what is to be actually created. What communities that are formed are usually both temporary and focused primarily on the destruction of the state.



People don't turn to capitalism primarily because they're forced to, they turn to capitalism because capitalism builds houses and roads, and anarchism does not. I despise the frankly bureaucratic, misanthropic free market fundamentalism of the libertarian just as much as any leftist, but what the libertarians do acknowledge that mainline anarchism does not is the fundamental necessity of production. People need to make things, because people need things, period. No amount of political wrangling will hide this fact, and their child-like love of the market at least brings this to our perception.



It will not be difficult, I think, to outdo the capitalists. Our current financial crisis arises primarily because the people do not wish to consume much of what is produced by capitalism. Enter any Wal-Mart, and you will notice that probably 70% of the things on the shelves will never be bought despite the incredibly low prices. Capitalism does indeed depend on human desire, and yet it has proven itself quite incompetent at gauging and fulfilling it. Between the rise of "indie" culture and the decline of the cultural center, I believe that all signs point to the natural destruction of capitalism as an ideal.