What's the absolute minimum someone has to believe in order to be an Anarchist

That individual institutions of a state would of necessity reflect the aims and attitudes of the state that they are part of, should go without saying. The state of victorian England would obviously serve the interests of a global colonial empire. Franco forbade the teaching of Catalan in Spain, and the German Nazis ensured complete [i]Gleichschaltung[i] of all their constituent authorities.

But by that reckoning a non-coercive state should have altogether non-coercive institutions.

Also, I would be careful to roundly dismiss the intentions of government workers as irrelevant. They might just be confused about the appropriate means of achieving their thoroughly benevolent ends, or they might just not have access to the means they themselves know only too well they need. Gobsmacking government workers with somewhat blunt calls for the uncompromising destruction of the whole of the state that they are conditioned to rely on to pay their wages and give shape, however badly, to their working lives, seems kind of inconsiderate and counterproductive.

To want communism without centralized authority. Meaning, to want workers to control production/distribution and society democratically without institutionalized hierarchy.

Wow. From now on I'm only ever going to use 'anarcho-syndicalist' or possibly 'class war anarchist' to describe myself cos I hadn't realised there was so much individualism or laissez-fairism or undefinedism in these forums. I've been using 'anarchist' as shorthand but if there's so much misunderstanding about that label I'm sure as hell gonna stop using it. Not even sure if libertarian communist is suitable since it looks like individualists might think that describes them as well.

Nah, its just this one tool who posts lots of crap arguments about how strikes are completely pointless and who thinks that some people with their own markets and currency and business and trade relations is in any way noteworthy, or of interest to anyone at all.

Tucker and Spooner are not anarchists. Some of Tuckers early positions were anarchist in nature but he changed much in his later years. The bottom line is if in a post capitalist libertarian anarchist/communist society (anarchism and advanced communism are the same thing) people want to form (Stirners) "union of egoists" without a chance for wealth accumulation, without private ownership of any means of production used for wage labor, without rent and without interest bearing loans then go right ahead but as soon as you closet capitalists start to excuse wealth accumulation - as in- start to excuse wage labor in any form, interest and rent then you become a detriment to any truly free global system because you support wealth accumulation which end's up forming a class society with one class in disproportionate control of all others. Fuck Carson and his apologetic RIGHT WING bullshit.

I'd first suggest Carson read Marx and other actual socialists on the rise of the state. Marx and perhaps Karl Polanyi. Blaming the "state" alone for exploitation ignores history. It ignores the materialist conception of history. When he says he wants to "reduce as much as possible" wage labor, rent and interest, what is essentially wealth accumulation, he is ignorant of the history of primitive accumulation and the side by side rise of the modern state. The system he advocates (if existing side by side in a post capitalist advanced communist system) would simply give rise to a state which would be created by the people/property owners who, in his system, would accumulate wealth via these so called contracts of voluntary wage labor, voluntary interest and voluntary rent. He wants people to own private means of production who would make contracts with so called free people who would chose to be wage workers. Chose to pat rent. Chose to pay interest.

The benefactors of these contracts, the people who collect rent, collect profit from wage labor, collect interest from loans would form a class with distinct interests. In order to protect these interests, as a class, they would form what is essentially, in free market theory, a privatized state. Through this state accumulated wealth would exert it's will upon those who have no accumulated wealth. So called free market theory is simply the abolition of the modern state and the abolition of modern monopolies which would essentially, due to their silly theory, be a sort of re-set button on primitive accumulation. It would all eventually end up in the same mess we're in today.

I think I may have demolished "free market anarchism" with one post. It would be a joy if we could get Kevin Carson in here to defend his lame duck. I'm tiered of hearing about him, I guess it's an American thing?

Old bucket-head will be back as soon as he gets lonely, don't you worry.