I've often applied logic mercilessly in determining what is and isnt real and political/ideological at once.
For instance I have decided that with the tendency of the market towards oligopoly and monopoly there is no real distinction between the capitalist as the policing agent of production and the state as a policing agent of production, once you understand this the question is no longer one of privatise vs. nationalise but how is democracy to be introduced into production and consumption, how is the individual who is without choice but to participate in both to be empowered sufficiently?
What I'm grappling with at present is the whole state socialism vs. anarchist socialism dimension which I'm beginning to think is highly dubious. Perhaps some die hard anarcho's can enlighten me on the following scores.
In both societies there is a requirement for an executive authority or power, even if that power is a provisional parliament that only meets annually or occasionally to discuss the performance of the local committees which govern all year round it still exists, so what differentiates a civil and political libertarian socialist state from an anarchist head syndicate or supreme council?
As to tax, please an anarchist 'executive' would tax in the same way as a socialist 'executive', I was reading recently details from a CNT membership card that dealt with the payment of subs and the official stamp that indicated payment of subs and consequently all citizen rights, is this not a form of taxation?
If some smart arse is going to put in an 'anarcho-capitalist' argument that the free reign of the market is the true abolition of taxation, they can just think twice, the private sector is just as capable of 'taxing' people as the state, even if they do with an illusion of choice to provide an elaborate camoflage.