@gortutay Where did he say "strong" federal gov? I'm not sure there's one accepted definition of anarchism that either applies or doesn't. He's mentioned that he endorses a very general conception of anarchism as something like a society that minimizes centralized power, where corporate power is considered a type of centralized power. In that sense, a state may exist to keep corporate power in check, but power could nevertheless be less centralized than if the state didn't exist.

Noam Chompsy may be trumpeted as the most well known anarchist, but in fact he is not an anarchist at all. In another interview he stated he supports a strong federal government which in his view is the only entity which can keep cororate entities in check. He repeadetly turned down interviews by anarchist magazines such as Anarchy! and the Fourth estate, while regularly appering in leftist magazines such as Z and The Nation.

You might question apolloian greed! How seperate politics from anarchy is, is welcome. Why become semetic in a mind of problems instead of a extasy of rage; the rainbow sorts itself out, to become a nuance. That sets outside reason in a dionysian state. One is not religious or readied by truth, It is sewn into the garments of the ridicule within. I follow a reconization to a means, not a resolve. The point being, How A point is set outside all that your talking about. No rain is a simple rain!

@windowpain1 I'm not smart enough to explain my point without many chomsky supporters eaily poking holes in my argument, but if you read Zohn Zerzan's chapter on Chompsky in his book Running on Emptiness..(you can probably find it on the web, it's anti-copyright) you will understand what I mean.