No assembly required

Till there be property there can be no government, the very end of which is to
secure wealth, and to defend the rich from the poor. Adam Smith.

People sometimes ask me why I call myself an anarchist. I think the above quote just about sums this up (I don’t like the "bourgeois kids"). I also happen to be against most forms of private property. Go figure. But recently I’ve been thinking: maybe 'anarchist' is too harsh of a word. The truth is I’m not as much an anarchist as I am a post-structuralist pomo windbag. I’m open to the possibility of the Other – that’s all – and it so happens that anarchism, the un-presence of law and state, is that other. This makes for a curious structural relationship between anarchism and the way things are. You see, absolute anarchism is, well, impossible. Thus, it will always by that intangible Other no matter how it's pursued and for whatever duration of time. I feel that it is just that – its impossibility and subsequent utter open endedness – that makes it so tantalizing. It is less a pursuit of some fantastic decided upon utopian dream, as it is an unwillingness to accept just such a notion. There is no narrowing of the imagination needed, nor any assembly required.