There's lots to respond to here, both from Jim and from the newcomer (Tim?). Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to all of the postings point by point. Furthermore, there seems to be some confusion arising from the fact that I am only speaking of publication of text, and not the act of organizing meetings/protests/other activities where maintaining strict anonymity would be too time-consuming.

First, Tim, you raise an interesting point (among many interesting points) about news media quoting expert sources. And you ask how those expert sources would be identifiable as such if they remained anonymous. Let me posit to you that in an anarchical world, there would be no such thing as experts that the rest of society is so dependent upon (to the point where they have to be specifically called on to provide answers to certain things). Take the following example: suppose you want to cross over the Potomac from Rosslyn to Georgetown. You can walk across that bridge, and most of the time I'll bet you don't think twice about going across. Why? Maybe because you've seen lots of other people go across the bridge on several occasions, you never saw the bridge collapse as a result, and so you assume that the bridge is safe enough to go across yourself. But suppose the bridge is replaced with a new bridge, and you can't use that past experience to feel safe about going on it. Instead, you look at a sign on the bridge, and it says something along the lines of "built by the Virginia and DC Departments of Transportation" or something to that effect. Now you feel safe. Why? Because you know those agencies hire certain experts (there they are finally) who know all about statics and mechanics and materials science, etc etc. In other words, the bridge was built by people who "knew what they were doing." And maybe you never studied physics or mathematics or any type of engineering or materials science. Instead, you trust that others who have studied these things (and of course got passing grades) have made the bridge safe.

Where is all of this going? An alternative would be for you to have your own knowledge of physics/engineering etc, and then you can look up the documentation that went into the construction of the bridge. And from that, you can make your own determination about the safety level of the bridge. But if you don't have that knowledge to understand the documentation, you're dependent on the experts. And because this is the actual typical situation, these experts are in fact in a position of power over you and most other people (this is something that was pointed out by Zerzan and other primitivists). I would argue that in an anarchical world, such a situation would not exist. And that means one of two things: 1) we don't have bridges or 2) we only have bridges and other structures to the extent to which all of the concepts that go into making these things are readily understandable by all who would be in a position to be compelled to use them. This latter possibility may actually not be as far-fetched as it sounds. It may require an alteration in the methodologies of education.

So what does all of this have to do with what you said? For one thing, reliance on "expert sources" is itself an act which helps perpetuate a hierarchical state of affairs. So wherever possible, it's likely best to try to reach the original facts and concepts from which the "expert sources" are drawing their opinions/conclusions.

As a general response, I think maintaining strict anonymity in all situations is too impractical to achieve. But wherever use of a name is not necessary (such as publication of any kind), then I see no reason why someone should include their name. And even if people did what you recommend (check themselves to make sure they aren't using the name to help them form their opinions about what was written), that doesn't prevent the problem I brought up: that continued association of a name with a set of ideas that society (or a part of society) finds valuable leads to the elevation of that name (and the person so named) and therefore leads to hierarchy.


Ok, now Jim: I'm not sure what we agree on. You seem to be saying that there will be some people with higher intelligence, and that that's ok, and that we as a society should just not be valuing higher intelligence. And so hence, in the absence of such a value judgement, those with higher intelligence will not be more valued and so hierarchy won't result.

I don't believe that's true. Let's take the case of the bridge I outlined above. If most people in the society value having a bridge (instead of having to swim) across the Potomac, then the creation of a functional and safe bridge will be a value expressed by members of that society. And let's say that only people with an IQ above 175 or so are in fact capable of inventing and understanding the concepts needed to make such a bridge. And let's say less than 2% or so of the population has such a high IQ. Are you really going to say that those high-IQ people are not going to be valued more than people who do not (or cannot) provide anything that the society values? Or are you saying that the members of the society should somehow will themselves not to value these people moreso than anyone else, even though these people were indispensible in the creation of this structure that everyone so clearly values?

Do you really think Ward Churchill is not more highly valued within the activist community than average Joe activist? If you say that Ward has better ideas than Joe does, and you admit that you value better ideas as a means to achieving social change ends, are you still honestly claiming that Ward is equally valuable to the movement as Joe? If Joe was gone, few would notice. But if Ward is gone, then we're without the source of those brilliant ideas that led us forward (what were those again?) and the likely source of future brilliant ideas that will lead us from future troubles. And yet Ward is equal in value to Joe? Do you really think I'm trying not to understand? You must at least see that I'm making a plausible if not entirely correct argument.