Well, he did, and the phrase is from him, and the letter is perfectly transparent on the point. The "collective dictatorship of the secret organisation" is an anti-democratic conspiracy, and it can't be otherwise.
> Authoritarianism and elitism within anarchism? More silly nonsense. I
> have yet to meet any anarchist who would fit the bill of being an
> authoritarian.
Well, alright. No anarchist has ever been authoritarian, or elitist, they're all perfect, beautiful souls. Goldman didn't say what she did, Bakunin didn't plot what he did - only anarchism has a pristine soul. Everyone else is author
> Secrecy and conspiracy? Nope. Perhaps when it comes around to planning
> protests which require some element of surprise against the police, but
> most anarchist groups and meetings are totally open.
Whatever this means, it doesn't address what I said. I have not described every anarchist group or activist as secretive and conspiratorial. I think that it can express itself in many ways. However, I won't resile from pointing out that some of the most anarchists have been secretive, undemocratic, and authoritarian in their recommendations, particularly if someone throws the usual trite bait at marxism and leninism.