>This is a draft, its needs some editing I know.
We've all heard or taken part of debates of which libertarian schools of thought are true 'anarchist'. Anarcho-Capitalists and Anarcho-Communists will call each other oxymorons, and the egoist will call them both 'spooks'. We've all been there, but the question is: Which side is true anarchism?
We all mutually agree that anarchism is the opposite of statism, but to define anarchism, one must define statism. In this concept is where the argument of 'true anarchism' emerges. The problem being, is that both sides (Social anarchism, i,e Anarcho-Communism, syndicalism, etc. and economic anarchism, i,e Agorism and Anarcho-Capitalsim.) both have their own seperate definitions of statism,(Ancaps and Agorists definition meaning an organization that uses force and coercion to undermine the free market, And Ancoms and Syndicalists being an organization or political system that creates and/or enforces hierarchy.) meaning, that if you use only one side's definition of statism, The other side will irrefutably appear statist, thus an oxymoron.
Well, now that we have recognized the problem, what is the solution? To deny either sides legitimacy without argument or fact is an insult to logic itself. One solution is to use the first definition of statism, An organization that creates or enforces hierarchy, thus leaving Mutualism and Social anarchism as the true owners of the anarchist title. Declaring Anarcho-capitalism and Agorism non anarchists ideologys, or we can use the Anarcho-Capitalist's definition of anarchism, thus declaring the other side false. I'm sure there are other ways, and there may be a future essay to write about these methods.
>This essay wasnt meant to provide a solution, only to identify a problem, feel free to ask any questions or criticisms.