Why I take exception to being called "a liberal."

"Liberalism is a half-measure. It sees government and capitalism as essentially sound, just in need of a few tweaks to function properly. Liberals like authority just as much as conservatives, they just believe in a slightly more benevolent authority that has slightly more consent from the governed. Liberals pay lip service to equality and inclusiveness, but are comfortable uncritically occupying positions of privilege.

"All that is well and good. We can work with misguided reformists. The problem is liberals' insistence that everyone else abide by their rules. Their privilege and authority issues ensure that they will try to control every movement they are involved in. They will gravitate to leadership positions (if there aren't any, they will create some), they will insist on controlling the message, and they will denounce any tactics they disagree with.

"Liberals are cop worshippers and politician's boot-licks. They are every movement's wet blankets, trying to push everyone back on the sidewalk and back in line when things are just about to get interesting. They are snitches and backstabbers. They will try to hold us back until we are unstoppable and then they will betray us."

Source

Fundamental change requires education.

"Anarchists know that a long period of education must precede any great fundamental change in society, hence they do not believe in vote begging, nor political campaigns, but rather in the development of self-thinking individuals. "We look away from government for relief, because we know that force (legalized) invades the personal liberty of man, seizes upon the natural elements and intervenes between man and natural laws; from this exercise of force through governments flows nearly all the misery, poverty, crime and confusion existing in society." — Lucy Parsons, in The Principles of Anarchism

Anarchism is not prescriptive.

I thought this was a great comment that addresses a common misunderstanding of anarchism, and breaks down why the question of "what would an anarchist society look like" is a problematic one.

First, I want to tangent a little bit. Anarchy is not a society that we can predict is going to exist. It's not a formula that we follow as a society that will lead us to a utopian existence. Anarchism is at its core a critique of the State, Capitalism, and hierarchical organization. As an ideology, it is the practice of decentralization of political, economic, and social power.

The misunderstanding with anarchism is that it does offer solutions and alternatives to the criticisms it gives, and in doing so it creates an illusion of an end-goal. Instead, each tendency and current of anarchism is a complementary tactic on decentralizing power. For example, Marx criticized capitalism for being exploitative; Kropotkin develops mutualism as a way of allowing workers to take direct control of the means of production and yet maintain the competitiveness of capitalist markets and the freedom to control one's labor. Communism criticizes capitalism for exploiting the workers; anarcho-communism criticizes capitalism for exploiting the workers and the State for perpetuating capitalism and violent social stratification; anarcho-syndicalism solves both of these criticisms as an anarchist tactic. The unions seize the means of production which allows them to decide what to do with their own labor; consensus direct democracy decision making. However, it also doesn't require the state to seize and distribute the means of production. The misconception is that anarchism is an ideology that hopes to spread to reach a critical mass, after which a majority of the working class seizes their own means of production. Instead, during times of revolutionary upheaval such as Anarchist Catalonia, we see glimpses of anarchism because anarchism is the assault on illegitimate hierarchies.

So, you can see a vision of mutualist societies in looking at present-day worker co-ops like Mondragon Corp and Valve (video game). You can see anarcho-syndicalism in the C.N.T. and the I.W.W. Less-so in the liberal trade unions like the AFL-CIO. You can see insurrectionary anarchism in Robin Hood and in bank robbers like Bonnano and the Conspiracy Cells of Fire living as outlaws in direct resistance to the state, or a even a biker gang. Life would differ depending on where you live. If you live in New York City, maybe you'd see taxis and bus drivers as part of a transportation union; you'd see Wall Street turned into some ironic piece of socialist art; if you live in the rural midwest you might see a return of a Wild-West sort of Wyatt Earp/Seth Bullock-type sheriff with a guardian, rather than enforcer, role, (I hope so!) with mostly lawlessness but banditry would be easily beaten by solidarity.

This is a much more in-depth explanation of what I usually tell people, which is that anarchism is not a goal, it is a journey -- it is a never-ending critique of power.