I dealt with the charge ‘purity politics’ in the piece (particularly in the introduction and in the critique of Chomsky) and elsewhere. I am criticising those people for all the reasons I have criticised them. That they share a ‘family resemblance’ is just as much a matter of convenience as anything else. I do make a case, elsewhere, that anarchism means this and any departure from that is an error, but the idea that this is ‘purity politics’ is actually a straw man - a means to attack my supposed call to ‘purity’ rather than address what I have actually said.

It’s like a chef saying ‘there are only really seven ways to cook a basic omelette well’ and for him to be attacked for pushing ‘purity omelettes’. How about you actually look at what those seven recipes are, compare them to your recipes, and see if there is any value in the exercise. Neither the chef, nor I, am resistant to an eighth omelette being put forward, or for a correction of one of the seven.

As for the charge of ‘highly subjective’. That is correct, or close to it (elsewhere I make a case for ‘panjectivism’ but we’ll put that aside for now). Objectivity in such matters is a total absurdity.