Well, ta11, I agree and disagree.
That is, I agree that Leninist rhetorical criticism of anarchism is and has been dishonest and should be treated with contempt.
But I also think that Marx's criticisms of 19th century anarchists was generally justified. I have no way of knowing if Bakunin was working with Czarist or Prussian secret police, but I know he believed in small, conspiratorial groups that would make revolution "on behalf" of the working class. And even the author of the article admits that Proudhon often succumbed to notions of partial reform of capitalism.
As to modern anarchism, things are rather different. I frankly see no obstacle to modern Marxists working whole-heartedly with anarcho-syndicalists...we agree far more than we disagree.
Once modern Marxists complete the necessary housecleaning...clearing away all the Leninist debris, I think relations between us will be pretty good.
Recall that few "Marxists" played any role of significance in the Paris Commune...it was, I believe, mostly the work of "Proudhonists" and "proto-syndicalists". Yet Marx enthusiastically praised their great insurrection and even modified his own views in response: "we have learned that the proletariat cannot take over the old state apparatus but must smash it and erect its own...which will no longer be a state in the proper sense of the word." (or words to that effect...I'm quoting from memory here.)
Of course, there will always be those with a vested interest in maintaining old divisions and resurrecting old quarrels. To such people, a particular variant of revolutionary politics is "intellectual property" to be jealously guarded and defended against misuse by unauthorized persons. If they could find a bourgeois court that wouldn't laugh at them, they'd sue.
But it doesn't bother me. Honest people in real struggle against capitalism will seek out and use the best ideas they can find without caring about copyright.
We shouldn't care either.
