RE: Anarchy doesn't exist, it's the equivalent of a Simpsons parody
"When I was younger and dumber, I thought anarchy was something cool, cool and dangerous. Something involving people walking around with mohawks, maybe killing others for fun or sport."
You do realize that is only one very limited, immature perspective of what anarchy is, right? There are whole branches of anarchism (mind you anarchism is completely different from anarchy) that believe very different things from each other. What you described as the replacement for statism is basically just the communist vanguard party, which I agree is very akin to statism with its centralized authority that needs to coerce people into staying under its jusrisdiction. However there are a great many people who adhere to the non-aggression principle which has nothing to do with creating a unified power structure to enforce the "anarchist establishment". The whole point is to work mutually and voluntarily, like any free system should.
Edit: When did I become an AnCap?
Well, if you read the whole thing, I said anarchism + statism are both different roads that lead to the same destination, so I obviously believe attempting to create a bunch of meaningless sub-categories of anarchy like genres of music is a pointless exercise. It would be a case of the Ted Kaczynski idea of liberal oversocialization, or talking just for the sake of talking without getting to the point or the real essence of what's going on.
I did read the whole thing. What I was trying to express was more that what you're talking about (a central authority that calls itself anarchist but actually holds the power) still isn't anarchism. That's Marxism/communism using the name because they like pretending they aren't just vying for the power of authority (even though the whole point of a vanguard party is to seize all power and authority with the promise to give it up). As someone else had expressed in a post last night or this morning (I don't remember when exactly) I feel true anarchism doesn't even concern itself with authority, it's simply people voluntarily working with other people to make their lives better.
Again, I'm saying you're pulling a liberal oversocialization strategy of trying to say, "no, it's not rock music, it's hard rock music!". None of those labels matter. The same thing happens in the end game no matter what. You're talking about the micro view. I'm talking about the macro view. If you look at my post history, you can see I have an interest in commodity trading. If I buy something on leverage, I don't really care what happens to it 5 seconds later, or wish to give it some type of label. All I care about is what the state of the thing is when I close my position. For me in the macro view, I'm getting shoveled a serving of the same thing no matter what choice.
But the whole world doesn't work that way. It's not a binary black:white, left:right, black:blue, right:wrong, good:evil. People have different means of getting to an end. It would be unfair of me to say all statists were fascist dictators, why is it any more fair to assume all anarchists are the same? If you asked me to put on "rock music" expecting to hear AC/DC or Aerosmith and I put on The Chariot or Drottnar, you'd probably be surprised or taken back, and quite possibly angry or upset.
I get that you're only worried about the end game, I'm trying to say you're putting a blanket label on a group of people with a very broad gradation of ideas and beliefs in the ultimate goal.