Anarchism is anti-state. Anarcho-socialism is also anti-property, given some muddy definition of property. Your statement is typical from anarcho-socialists wh

Anarchism is anti-state. Anarcho-socialism is also anti-property, given some muddy definition of property. Your statement is typical from anarcho-socialists who want to squat on the word "anarchism" while failing to define what property should be granted to an individual (call it possession if you wish), how to reach consensus about it, how to enforce it without a higher authority, and what to do about the higher authority that naturally arises in such a state of chaos. At least anarcho-capitalists have an out when it comes to defining property... it's whatever you can afford to defend, probably through third parties that offer defense as as contract. I'll keep saying this until I'm convinced otherwise: What is needed is something between anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism that both sides can agree upon, but such a thing cannot happen unless everybody looks further into the future, understanding that there are aspects of humanity & private trade that are both needed for us to prosper. Squatting on the word "Anarchism" or calling one side or the other confused doesn't help either cause. They're both two ends of a spectrum and the reason why we have the spread is because we don't understand how to bridge the gap, or we don't yet understand that neither end points alone will go very far.