Here’s the thing, people have different conceptualizations of what a “hierarchy” is

Anarchy does not support “justified hierarchy” because then you are in the field of supporting hierarchy. That’s a great example of why it is important to defend definitions.

I think how the AnCaps conceptualize it is that me declaring myself feudal baron over the parcel of land

AnCaps are not anarchists because they are capitalist, and capitalism requires classes and inequality. It’s as simple as that.

Also, private ownership over land fundamentally results in hierarchy, so this thought experiment should really be grounded before it ever takes off.

No one who has gone through the basic process of contemplating hierarchy is going to call a feudal baron an anarchist. Anyone who has not contemplated hierarchy doesn’t get to speak for anarchists.

Do we take the Christian Nationalists who tolerate other religions and support abortion seriously when they say that they are proof that Christian Nationalists aren’t fundamentally opposed to religious and reproductive freedom? Of course not, they’re just bad Christian Nationalists. Their muddying the waters does not change the reality and foundations of the movement.

When people mis-identify their beliefs, what is a more efficient argument against them than spelling out which belief is what?

We need the lines to be more clear. We don’t need rightists on the left, and we don’t need leftists on the right.

That completely falls apart in practice, which is what we should be attacking them on.

I do. I point out that hierarchy produces inequality which is fundamentally unstable. Easy peasy.

Now, without citing hierarchy and inequality, how do you concisely and effectively communicate why such a project falls apart? Why play on hard mode?

With NATO-Anarchists I think their logic is “lesser-of-two-hierarchy-ism”, they see NATO and the West as hierarchical, but Russian Nationalism and Chinese Dengism are WORSE hierarchies, so unless full anarchism is on the table you should support NATO in the short term.

Meet them at their argument: Work together to spell out the impact of hierarchies on both sides, and show them how this is not true. They could only hold this opinion through lack of observation or, more likely, not having contemplated hierarchy before calling themselves an anarchist. Stick to definitions and this is an easy argument. Expose them as fundamentally pro-NATO, not anti-hierarchy, and prevent them from misleading other polisci newbs.

Personally, I’m not convinced this is even a sizeable or impactful population (most anarchists I know are powerless but happy to see the US overextend and burn itself out), and I’m not about to give up the power of language to a boogeyman. But I don’t have to ignore them or give up the significance of anarchism, if I just stick to defending the definitions.

these bull-crap pseudo-left ideologies usually have a kernel of logic to them

and yet

We should be attacking them on the logic of it

That sounds like a real messy approach to me. Why not just point out their divergence from the consensus definition, and then address why the consensus definition exists as it does? . At the end of day, that’s exactly where their logical fallacies reside and where they can be most concisely addressed. Take a lesson from pedagogy and illustrate the self-consistent framework, rather than fighting one-off battles.

Let’s say we take out the foundation of the anarchist ideology - it’s definitional opposition to hierarchy. In this case, where does the strength in our arguments even come from? By talking about everything except hierarchy?

But hey, you do you. I always say “it takes all tactics,” and I’m not the kind of person that needs everyone to agree with me. I will continue to attack these most basic categorical errors, and I will trust you to do what you think is best as well.