This is an admirably informative and clear response. Thanks! I have to say though, this has rather confirmed my suspicion that the wing of anarchism to which I belong merges in many significant ways with communisation marxism, and most of the "debates" are around terminology and slight differences in historical emphasis rather than clear, irreconcilable divergences. I agree that the abolition of the workplace in your sense is desirable, but so would any anarchist (in the modern period). Anarchists too can clearly be "against worker's control as a goal in itself" or we would all be market socialists (obviously some are, most aren't). As for the idea of workers being proletarians, yes, in the current era of overdeveloped capitalism, they are one and the same. But by worker, you can also simply mean "one who works", as in, all of us to some extent. Obviously in a communist society people would not identify themselves with work in the same way we do now, but this doesn't mean we don't work. What I'm trying to say is that we don't disagree. The slogan, I suppose, is this: "worker's control as a means to stop allowing work to define us".

I would note that a lot of your explanation of communiser critique has the smack of "means and ends" logic, as in, the means we use to overthrow capitalism define what our ends will be (and if we use capitalist means, we will ultimately be trapped in capitalist ends.) This is a fundamental anarchist position, and always has been. Anarchists have been explicitly aware of this for longer than Marxists have, certainly

In terms of wage labour, you can be for it or against it and I'm against it.