sorry if this stuff is a little off the mark, just having read the various comments I feel like getting in there.

1. One of anarchism's drawbacks is that it is so marginalised. If the 'average' person is completely unable to related to the lifestyle choices of most anarchists, they will percieve the politics as even more looney fringe than it is. Not suggesting anarchists should change their lifestyles themselves, more that strategically they shouldn't be so evangelical about them.

2. As a veteran of the anarchist and anarcha-feminist movement in the early 90s, we had loads of network-building, momentum-generating, communcating, attracting more people type stuff going on. For some reason it didn't really work. Most of the people present at those events are no longer active in any form of activism, most no longer even identify as anarchists these days. I would really like to know why this happened - some have commented they they found the level of lifstyle restrictions perceived to be inherent in being an anarchist activist too difficult to maintain. As a consequence the anarchist movement seems to be kept alive by the dedication and committment of a few key individuals, with fluctuating amounts of transient support.

I would be interested to see if there is any analysis done of why such efforts to maintain a movement have been largely ineffective. At the time I left the country I had largely given up movement building activities, in anarchist, anarcha-fem and McGillicuddy because I found them so bloody frustrating.

Anyway, this is not a quick comment really, good luck, hope it works, looking forward to dancing on the ruins thus engendered...