Thank you for this. I think it is a good way of explaining it all. Anarchists tend to have very specific definitions for things (whether they are academically accurate or not certainly varies, we sometimes like to change the definitions of things lol) that tend not to be understood by everyone else. Issue is we don’t really have better ways of explaining things. Cause I do feel defining being anti-state as simply being anti-authoritarian does lose some of the nuance, but when people either don’t agree with or don’t understand our definition of a state that nuance was lost to begin with anyways.

Of course - it's really just a starting point for people who can't wrap their heads around it. I was in that position myself for years.

More realistically, and with more nuance, I would regard anarchists as generally being opposed to rigid and enduring institutions. For people like me who still believe in a traditional state, those institutions - even with all their potential for corruption, abuse, and hierarchy - are valuable stores of institutional and tribal knowledge which would be lost with a majority-ad hoc system of government reliant on direct democracy.

Not only that, but what anarchists would probably regard as my inner authoritarian coming out, people do sometimes need to be told what to do. Anarchism, in my view, scales until the unified group is no longer capable of exercising overwhelming authority (and I apologize for the term) over the un-unified. Cities and even regions can be integrated into an anarchist framework, but I'm of the opinion that it begins to fall apart beyond that, as people of different communities struggle to equate each other as exactly as important as themselves/their neighbors. The NIMBY problem on a large scale.

While I find the State useful in more situations than just this, it's here where I find the traditional State truly necessary in cracking the whip on enforcement of regionally unpopular initiatives. People who find agreement on abstract principles can still become very 'loose' with those principles when it comes to being applied to them. I'm unconvinced that anarchist federative models have the same capacity to enforce static decision-making like that without coming to resemble a traditional state in basic form and function in the long-term.

That being said, I'd also be happy to be proven wrong - even if the theoretical display doesn't impress me enough to prefer it over a traditional state, I'm happy to see other forms of power structure (that aren't inherently ultra-shitty) remind the traditional state it's not the only game in town.

Since coming over to the fediverse I have always considered you to be an honorary anarchist. Its rare to see non-anarchists defending and supporting anarchists lol

I consider that high praise! 🙏

While I definitely do have disagreements with even the basic end-goal of anarchists, I generally regard anarchism as both possible and desirable compared to present capitalist society; and that the anarchist undertaking of creating parallel systems of low-hierarchy power structures outside of the state to be both moral and necessary for a just, non-anarchist society. In my thinking, all power is based on implicit negotiation; having alternatives to state institutions for community services (including charity, regulation, security, etc) strengthens the negotiating position of the people relative to the state, which is almost always good.

We may disagree on whether to take Ol' Yeller behind the shed and put the State down for good, but there's a lot of room for cooperation leading up to that 'end-decision' - starting with restraining the ill-trained dog so he can't savage anyone he damn well pleases.

Hey, question. If Anarchists want to dissolve the entire slate and start fresh, no hierarchy, why do they call themselves leftists? Wouldn't it make more sense to completely avoid labels?

Since if you're a leftist, you think of yourself above those on the right or draw a distinction from them. And vice versa.

It's not that different in anarchy, it just doesn't work the way you are accustomed to.

When I mention a 'trial' it doesn't refer to someone being a judge - judges are individuals who are supposed to be impartial, and that is impossible.

There is no requirement for how the equivalent of a trial would proceed, but people would discuss it in an open forum, figure out evidence, ask questions, and build a consensus on both the perpetrator and actions to take.

Any action taken, of course, is open to consequences. If it turns out that the people who formed an opinion on guilt and punishment were prejudice against the accused, then they would have to face that too.