Darios, with respect, your post comes across as rather ill informed, if I am understanding it correctly.
In order to address your post, I have reversed the order of your points. I haven't done this to be disingenuous, just so my response makes sense.
I chuckle on most occasions when I see the terms 'free-market' and 'capitalism' used. They're handed over by left wingers as somehow self-evident terms in a way I can only describe as childish. Take "capitalism" - sometimes it is used as a noun, sometimes a verb, sometimes an adjective. What a busy little word! When pressed many self described left-wing people I encounter cannot articulate a definition of 'capitalism' that is also coherent with their other views. It's used in conversation as if everyone present shares the same definition.
Surely this is rubbish? Socialist worker has always made it quite clear to me that capitalism is one particular set of social relations, that has superseded, in this country at least, feudalism. It is one particular set of social relations in "The history of all hitherto existing society, the history of class rule", to paraphrase.
So explanation. Feudalism equals: a ruling class owning the means of production, the land. A producing class with control over the production process but compelled to give over a portion of their labour to the ruling class because of the ruling classes control of the means of production, the peasantry. Superseded by: capitalism: a ruling class owning the means of production, the land factories research etc. A producing class, having no control over the means of production, with only the right to sell their labour to the capitalist class because of the capitalist classes control of the means of production, the working class. Feudalism and capitalism therefore are quite simply different types of social relations, and so different forms of society.
If the ideological difference amounts to the fact that the libertarians (mini-archists) want to maintain a minimal state, then in terms of end goals that's a clear ideological difference. What baffles me however is that anarchists of all stripes aim at the destruction / removal of state power and yet are willing to work with socialists who, ostensibly, maintain that a relatively strong state, properly directed, is the solution. Meanwhile libertarians (mini-archists) seek, like the anarchists, to massively curtail state power, though they stop short of complete curtailment. Now who, 'on paper' has more in common with the mainstream anarchists?
Surely this is a distortion of the truth?
Both the anarchists and socialists have said, in a situation where there is a residue of bourgeois force/opposition, workers should claim the monopoly right to the use of violence (The State: that body which claims the monopoly right to the use of violence.) Both the anarchists and the socialist claim this should be done through workers militias, who are rotated and so do not operate as a standing force. Both anarchists and socialists see this as a
TEMPORARY period, a period of process, social revolution in action, that will lead to anarchism/communism. Anarchism/Communism: both in my mind representing the same thing, a completely different set of social relations. A situation where there is no class of owners and/or controllers of the means of production, and so no ruling class.
the main point being for both, but especially for the socialist, that any remnants of state is purely temporary, whilst any bourgeois forces remain, and seen as a stepping stone to a classless dateless society/set of social relations. Socialist Worker in particular make this clear by distinguishing the period when there will be a worker's state, socialism, from the following period, communism.
