Well, he is one of the leading lights of anarchism. But I thought I had already said that I wasn't trying to impugn anarchism as such - merely pointing out that if there are two souls of socialism, there are many souls of anarchism.
> 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.
You might, then, have misunderstood. I *do* appreciate that the anarchist critique of marxism entails that it is inherently authoritarian in its recommendations, specifically in the proposal for a proletarian dictatorship. I *do* appreciate that it is a political critique. What I *don't* appreciate is the risible moralising that goes along with this, and that is the reason why I pointed out that more than two can play that game (and the only winner, in general, is status quo liberalism). This is a political argument, or at least it should be, but the original contribution (and, I might add, your indignant follow-ups) have principally been about celebrating the pristine culture of anarchism in contrast to the impure alternatives.
> Anarchists are not secretive and undemocratic. This is laughable.
Back to the 'Beautiful Soul' politics again. Anarchists can never be, by definition, any of those horrid things (except when they are). But they can be, have been, and will be: if they're any good, they will be, anyway. Anyone who is not prepared for authoritarianism against some enemies and in some circumstances isn't prepared for the ordinary range of human experience.