> 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.
Anarchists don't support the idea of the "collective dictatorship of the secret organisation."
When you attack Bakunin, you aren't attacking anarchism. We are not Bakuninists.
> 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
I'm sure that a few anarchists here and there have exhibited these traits, but you seem to be one of those Marxists who think that the anarchist critique of authoritarianism is about personal quirks. It's a political critique. We don't care if individual Marxists are personally authoritarian, we oppose their authoritarian political programs.
> 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.
Anarchists are not secretive and undemocratic. This is laughable.
Chuck