As the mouthpiece of global capitalism, The Economist might be expected to rejoice at the [anti-globalisation] movement's discomfort. Not at all. Everybody needs an opponent to keep him on his toes. The sight of nose-studded mohican-haired louts who hadn't seen a bath in a month wreaking havoc in the City served to remind the foot-soldiers of capitalism of the chaos that their daily grind was helping to hold back. Well, it gave them something to talk about, at least. There are plenty of modern management techniques which the movement could employ to reinvigorate itself. Has, it, for instance, tried benchmarking itself against comparable movements? If street protest is too arduous for the membership, should it not think of outsourcing its more strenuous activities to the immigrants who already do most of Britain's tougher jobs? Taking that argument further, if domestic apathy is the problem, perhaps the answer is offshoring. A Mayday protest organised in, say, Libya or North Korea would really make a splash. The finest in British wit, now available worldwide. And it goes hand in hand with my recent suggestion that the Democrats hire a Bangalore call center to conduct a get-out-the-vote campaign. This general idea here is the reason why I got off the "anarchy team" shortly after high school. Its a great defense mechanism for those points in time when you are unable to make decisions for yourself. Beyond that, its a decision to be uninvolved in the process. Anarchy doesn't scale. There is something to say for a decision to work "outside the system" when possible. This is normally considered "independent" rather then "anarchist". Often its what's necessarly, as new ideas can be more easily seen from the fringe, even if that's not where they come from. Try explaining this to a 19 year old sometime. See, I'm old now. And I have not even hit 30 yet! I blame the Internet for turning me into a bitter man early. From anarchy to apathy | 
