Anarchists. They think they are the coolest thing, tricked out in balaclavas, bandanas, punk style and black clothes. Reminds me of the garb we wore in college, except the bandanas weren't a tear-gas shield, but a hair accessory. We didn't run riot in the streets, either, just skulked past our exasperated parents, who were busy counting the hours until we "grew out of" this phase.

But the "Black Bloc" crowd at the G20 Summit had a different agenda: making a statement against "corporate power," "global governance" or any people who had more money than they did. So they smashed store windows, torched police cars, smeared themselves with baby oil and mugged for the cameras.

How avant-garde. How creative. Not. For their performance, I give them a 1 on 10. If this were a reality show, Simon Cowell would hiss them off the stage. And the business owners and residents of Queen Street would probably have liked to do worse, as these hooligans smashed in their windows and trashed their neighbourhood.

The truth is, anarchists are old news. They were radical, once -- in the days of Charles the First and Louis XVI. They had their heyday in the 19th and early 20th centuries, as the labour movement swelled in response to the growth of capitalism. Anarchists -- and their variants, such as anarchosyndicalists -- rallied workers, helped topple the Romanov Dynasty in Russia, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand (thus precipitating the First World War) and nearly ousted dictator Francisco Franco in Spain.

Then they began to lose steam, with the rise of other, more organized terrorist forces: the Irish Republican Army, the Red Brigades, Basque separatists -- movements with specific national and ethnic grievances, as opposed to the general goals of sowing chaos and beheading the existing order.

To survive, anarchism had to evolve. From the 1960s onwards, it allied itself with feminism, environmentalism, anti-globalization, basically any left-wing movement with a pulse. New symbols of power became the enemy. Corporations became a favourite target, as did First World nation-states.

But the modern anarchist has it harder than his 20th-century colleagues, paradoxically because of the emergence of these two ostensible

villains. Thanks to the wealth creation made possible by the corporate organization of capital, Karl Marx's nightmare -- the contented bourgeoisie -- dominates the landscape of the Western world. Today, these middle classes have lost their thirst for armed revolution, thank you. They have too much to lose.

The tipping point for revolution has also shifted because new technology -- produced by those self-same "evil" corporations -- facilitates freedom of speech, providing not only an escape valve (all those people sounding off on blogs) but legitimate means to bring about change, by helping groups organize and mobilize public opinion. Western democracies not only tolerate, but provide, outlets for dissent and discord, giving people more freedom than ever before.

The anarchists' goal this past weekend thus was not just to cause havoc, but to make it look like they had something to cause havoc about. "Canada is a police state!" they cried. Sure it was -- for 72 hours, because the anarchists made it necessary to be one. Because of their threat, police asked for, and were granted, unprecedented authority. Because of their violent acts on Saturday, police then arrested hundreds of people who posed no threat, presumably just to be on the safe side.

Some observers say this was unacceptable. And it would be, if it were an everyday occurrence. But let's be real here: Canada is not a police state. In normal, peaceful times -- i.e., when the anarchists stay home -- these draconian laws do not exist, are not enforced and are not needed. Like the War Measures Act in 1970, they come into play when there is a real and pressing danger to public order. (For once, I'll side with the late prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Just watch me, indeed).

In 2010, if these anarchists really want to challenge a police state, there are still plenty to choose from. In North Korea, citizens cannot protest, or they simply disappear. In Zimbabwe, your property can be taken from you at will, based on the colour of your skin. Women in Saudi Arabia cannot walk in the street unaccompanied by a male relative -- or even have coffee with a man who is not one -- without being arrested. In Cuba, homosexuality is illegal and gay men are routinely thrown in jail.

If these anarchists had any spine, they would go to places like that to make their "statements" against authority and its abuses. But of course, they are too cowardly to do so. So they go where they know they won't get their heads bashed in, where the cameras are allowed to roll, and where they can always retreat to the suburbs if things get too hot. But then, what should one expect from people who dress like skulking teenagers?

© 2010 National Post Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution, transmission or republication strictly prohibited.