You say that some form of repression is needed. It seems there is a divergence here. To put it in the words of another: "If we anarchists are utopians, we are

You say that some form of repression is needed. It seems there is a divergence here. To put it in the words of another: "If we anarchists are utopians, we are so as a tension towards quality; if democrats are utopians, they are so as a reduction towards quantity. And against reduction, against the atrophy lived in a dimension of the minimum possible damage for them and the maximum damage for the great number of people who are exploited, to this miserable reality we oppose our utopia which is at least a utopia of quality, a tension towards another future, one that will be radically different to what we are living now." The need for repression obvious if you are a member of the emergent cybernetic bourgeoisie. Black hat hackers, terrorists, computer illiteracy, government regulation, and anarchists all threaten your material conditions for existence and your quantitative conceptual framework. The cyber-liberals will support political projects as long as they don't interfere with their business or threaten their position of power and privilege. John Stewart summed up this attitude when he said of Occupy: "Look, if this thing devolves into throwing trash cans into Starbucks windows, nobody's going to be down with that..." tl;dr - It's not about creating a perfect society, it's about destroying the shitty one we have. Of course you're not down with that if you wanna be the next Steve Jobs.