Um, you know nothing about anarchism. The first person to call himself an anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, whose most famous line is "property is theft". The first international was made up primarily of communists, led by Marx, and anarchists, led by Bakunin. Bakunin and the anarchists split from the international because they thought Marx's ideas would lead to totalitarianism. Bakunin's famous line is (paraphrasing):

"freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"

Democratic may be the opposite of what you think of as anarchism, but what you think of as anarchism has no basis in history. You should probably choose a different word.

The anarchists who fought against Franco in the Spanish civil war, and who for a brief moment actually implemented anarchism in the real world, were explicitly anarcho-syndicalists.

I know about the Spanish civil war and Proudhourn as well the socialist heritage of anarchism thank you very much!

The only thing anarchists of different stride have in common with each other is they accuse each other of being non-anarchists. Thus the attempt to define each other out of existence.

(I consider democracy evil because it is two wolf and one sheep deciding what to eat for dinner)

This is true, but he doesn't claim to know much about economics. He pretty explicitly doesn't care about economics. He's the De Morgan dual of right-wingers who care only about productivity growth and don't care at all about distribution issues.

Given that, everything he says about the popular (mis-)understanding of Adam Smith is true.

EDIT: take for example this hacker news thread ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=489024 ) where:

1. a guy posits Adam Smith's labor theory of value

2. gets told he should read Adam Smith to correct his mistaken ideas

3. quotes Adam Smith to back up his previous statement

4. gets told he's misinterpreting something

It's crazy really.