And whilst interesting to see such points raised, I’ve not seen detailed response necessarily other than accusations on both sides of misunderstanding and thus dismissal of points raised.
Towards the end of the article it summarizes something which seems a gold point to me about the shared end being communism/classless society.
Which is aptly put here:
From whence does a socialist ethic arise? Not by transplanting a utopian vision of socialist society into the present, in ‘miniature’. No. It is more the other way around: the utopian vision of socialist society is a projection of our (somewhat) shared socialist ethic on to a future world. This socialist ethic exists and develops precisely in and through the practices in which we all collaborate together (cooperating and conflicting) and work through our differences, make our mistakes and share our successes and failures, together. If Maeckelbergh’s idea of ‘reciprocal contamination’ means anything it must mean the negotiation and internalization of shared ethics in the course of collaborating in common projects. If this is the case, then it would be very useful to try to elaborate this socialist ethics.
This is a very important and concrete task, because as Franks notes, there will never come a time when all conflicts have been resolved. To moderate the differences within the anti-capitalist movement is surely the most attractive way to develop the ethics of socialist society in which an even wider range of aspirations will exist.
In fact, the mere posing of socialist society as an end is misconceived. It is not a question of bringing means and ends into conformity at all, and any attempt to do so can only lead to a barren utopianism by subordinating our means, that is, our organizing practices of today, to an absolutely imaginary utopia ‒ a world in which the socialist ethic has been universalized. In fact, when I do this, what is actually happening is that:
I begin with my spontaneously adopted ethics;
I then project them on to a future society, and
I then deduce the ethics with which I actually began, but now with the illusory justification that it prefigures our shared end, socialist society.
In other words, it is a fraud.
No, the socialist ethic has to be justified in terms of the exigencies of organizing here and now, in the light of the wisdom we have inherited from our shared tradition. ‘Socialist society’ has no determinate content other than the generalization of the socialist ethic. But the socialist ethic is not something for the future: it is now. The means of our activity, including the consciousness of our activists, are in fact elements of the capitalist society of which we are a part and which is the very object which we are trying to change. This is where the identity of means and ends is located, in the subjectivity of the social strata which are thrown into opposition by the development of capitalism itself.
I think its a good criticism lf utopianism generally which is confused about means and ends. Although it could be argued this isn’t inherent to anarchist positions. But do worry of what comes off as abstract individualist tendencies and moralizing which I have a knee jerk reaction to and at present associate with some anarchist types. But I hold out that its my lack of exposure to nuanced points that has me interpret anarchism uncharitably.