When I have used the word ideology, I have not used it in the broadest (and largely useless) sense of meaning an individual's particular ideas and aspirations. I use it to mean "A set of doctrines or beliefs forming the basis of a political or economic system," but also any programs or abstractions that people place above their individual desires. I think this is as clear as I can be on this point. Anarchists who criticize ideology are not trying to say that they are pure and free from all of the prejudices of ideologies--especially those of the dominant culture, but that they are making a conscious effort to be critical thinkers who do not view the world through the narrow confines of an ideology. It seems obvious to me that developing a specific conception of the ideal social system (supposedly ideal for "the masses" or "the common good") and then trying to bring the world more in line with that particular form is far more ideological than the rejection of all social systems and formal organizations in favor of acting according to individual desires and aspirations--and developing theories and practices based on these desires. Whenever individuals are made subordinate to some collectivity, theory tends to become rigidified into ideology. Marxists have long argued that the anarchists in Spain should have "seized state power." Steve creates the false dichotomy of seizure of state power versus failure. If the intention of the anarchists was to create an anarchist social revolution, then allowing for the existence of any state power constitutes some sort of failure. The fact that influential militants such as Garcia Oliver and Montseney joined the Loyalist government shows the extent to which the CNT-FAI had become a thouroughly hierarchical organization managing revolt rather than encouraging it. Many in the CNT-FAI accepted the authoritarian logic that fighting for anarchist revolution would lead to "anarchist dictatorship." Social revolution had swept across much of Republican Spain without the support of the CNT-FAI. The official anarchist leadership had placed the war ahead of the revolution--and both were defeated. When the CNT-FAI leaders met on July 20, 1936, they decided the objective conditions for social revolution were not right. There are many things anarchists can learn from this, and that they should seize state power is obviously not one of them--that is something the Marxists will debate (not to say that Steve is a Marxist). To succeed, the struggle against capitalism must become a generalized revolt. Those who seek to manage that revolt have little affinity with those who wish to make it happen. All individuals must struggle for power--control over their own lives. To submit to powers outside of ourselves (the "needed leadership") is counter-revolutionary from an anarchist perspective. I hope this will clear things up. I know Steve disagrees, but hopefully he will appreciate my attempt at a coherent argument.