The concept is stupid. Maybe the player character of Ōkami.

If the children excite you, yes.

Eiffel 65 - Move Your Body
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ6HBbyJR34

Play

Four inches.
Wait, did you mean flaccid or erect?

Pop music, yes.

Here's how a hero of mine justified it in the 1920s:
"Anarchists, convinced of the validity of our programme, must strive to acquire overwhelming influence in order to draw the movement towards the realisation of our ideals. But such influence must be won by doing more and better than others, and will be useful if won in that way. We must deepen, develop and propagate our ideas and co-ordinate our forces in a common action. We must act within the labour movement to prevent it being limited to and corrupted by the exclusive pursuit of small improvements compatible with the capitalist system. We must work with all the masses to awaken the spirit of revolt and the desire for a free and happy life. We must initiate and support all movements that tend to weaken the forces of the State and of capitalism and to raise the mental level and material conditions of the workers."

Our small minority is what some call a "vanguard" of the overall social evolution, existing to help the process by which average people can come to radical conclusions. We're here to explain and clarify what is happening in society and show why anarchism is the only real solution to structural social problems; to help the masses, to enlighten them, to give them necessary advice, to provoke them into taking initiative.
We sometimes make dramatic interventions, but do so as comrades making an inspiring example that people can autonomously follow; not as dictators forcing through our particular vision for others to obey.
Accordingly to the libertarian principle, it is the masses themselves who should apply themselves to solving social problems and waging the revolution. That most of them are still a way off doing that merely shows that we're not doing awfully well right now (although this year has shown amazing progress), not that we lack legitimacy.

http://shadow-of-mars.livejournal.com/7248.html

ALL countries have elements of both, as both are ideal economies that no country could ever adopt totally. You are a wingnut idealist.

Law is not distinct from politics, and none of the mentioned forms of social regulation are intrinsically endowed with any rationality.

What a hideous weasel-worded question: You assert that the current malaise of the Left is a result of the obsolescence of its traditional economic models, and I disagree with that.
My diagnosis is the obsolescence of the Left's traditional organisational models: centralised hierarchical authority and centrally-codified doctrines.

Yes. It is the extreme end of the wider libertarian persuation. Within anarchism there are distinct ideologies which I have specific views on.

Why do you treat "globalisation" as a positive goal for which we discuss what is needed?

I do not.

Capitalism and the state tend to attack any existential threat sooner rather than later - laws discriminating against cooperatives could be enacted tomorrow if need be. People who pursue strategies of "replacing capitalism" with a new business model are often very over-optimistic about their ability to avoid repression.

But more importantly, movements and organisations which start out trying to provide an alternative are often assimilated by capitalism. Industrial cooperatives become employers in their own right, with full-members becoming managers and their new employees exploited labour-market assets like any other proles. Housing co-ops become landlords, credit unions become banks (building societies in the UK started out as community schemes), syndicalist unions negotiate with management and crack down on wildcat strikes. Ordinary people who start out trying to build alternatives end up becoming the thing they hate.

Any potential alternative to capitalism operating in the here and now will have to interact with the things that it is trying to replace. A co-operative store will have to buy stock from capitalist suppliers. Even syndicalist unions find themselves having to negotiate with managers.

This doesn't mean that we should reject completely all these ways of doing things. What it means is that none of these is a road to radical change on its own. Instead of seeing these types of business as a way of cultivating viable replacements for the prevailing economic system, we should see them as merely ways of creating a culture of solidarity and resistance.

The real question is: why are certain minorities so "unpopular" that the whole society must be structured in an authoritarian classist manner just to protect them from the mass?
Either these guys really are evil pigs who don't deserve protecting, or the majority of the nation is under the spell of some irrational hate-ideology. See my answer below for why the latter might happen.

Yes. Common people live lives of alienation, repressed desire and gilded brutalism. Meaningful happiness and self-determination here and now is impossible, forcing people into Churches and drug-dens.
The stupidities of idealism, the posessive loss-limitation of populist-conservatism, the passive-agression of hierarchic leadership/followership... They are all created by a sick mode of living, and are systematically utilised by conservative and reactionary forces to justify and maintain it.

I wasn't aware that the had been restructured.

Slavery per se, no. It's far too long ago for anything to be done to remedy the injustice - all of the injured parties are long dead.

But the injustice of multi-generational socio-economic oppression of black Americans is still very real. This generation needs to take responsibility for remedying it, because it isn't going away. Electing Obama doesn't count one cent - he's the son of a rich whitey and a foreigner, and isn't doing anything to redistribute the ingrained grossly inequitible distribution of capital and opportunity.

Yes, and it looks like that's exactly what they're doing.