[kiliantics]

There are quite a few examples of serious academics that have endorsed anarchism and have more robust arguments against the status quo. Chomsky and Graeber are very well-regarded and have works on the topic that are properly cited the way you'd like.

That said, anarchism is all about refusing to acknowledge any legitimacy in the institutions it critiques. It's not surprising that these writers don't conform to your idea of how such a text should be organised. A dense, academic format also doesn't make for very good propaganda either.

[aaron-lebo]

Chomsky's not actually especially well-regarded in political science. I had a semester of linguistics, Chomsky was a god, we talked about his theories a lot. In political science, he's literally never been mentioned in readings.

That said, anarchism is all about refusing to acknowledge any legitimacy in the institutions it critiques. It's not surprising that these writers don't conform to your idea of how such a text should be organised.

Surely anarchists believe their arguments are better with evidence.

A dense, academic format also doesn't make for very good propaganda either.

If propaganda is averse to truth, discard the propaganda. Not asking for a page of footnotes, asking for a single citation. It's as though it was written in a vacuum, and it was not.