I'm confused

The "demonstration" in Seattle is reported to have a group of black clad anarchist  - which seems to be a fairly standard tactic for these demonstrations - same thing happened back in 99 WTO conference.

So here's where I'm confused,   The Occupy movement seems to want bigger government - you know to put the screws to that greedy 1%  And yet they have Anarchists?   WTF?   These people aren't looking to have a form of government that has no monopoly on the use of force, or ability to apply force - they're looking for the Government to coerce the wealthy in to giving up their wealth (at least that's my take on it).

Is it the media that's getting this wrong?   Apparently it's happened in Cleveland -  a plot to blow up a bridge, again Anarchists and Anti-business - which I guess in this case means National Socialist rather than anarchits?  I think they use the term unadvisedly - perhaps they should stick with criminal.   It's sort of like Terrorist - at this point Terrorist really doesn't mean anything because it means pretty much anyone for any reason that someone else doesn't approve of.

My definition of Terrorist?  A person or group with a shared ideology, involved in or plotting violence against civilian targets for the purpose of causing harm and fear, with the idea that this will somehow prove beneficial to the terrorist in the long run.    So maybe these kids in Cleveland could be classified as terrorists but it would require that they have some goal other than just blowing shit up.  I doubt any of them are bright enough to have a long range goal.

Part of the problem is the Left seems to like to appropriate words and change the meanings - For example if this were the late 1800's and into the mid 1900's I'd be a Liberal - and a liberal would be a progressive (see they grabbed progressive because it sounds good, and used it for their own agenda).   Go read The Road to Surfdom by F.A. Hayek   He was there and explains it better than I do.