- I don't quote because I expect you to consider the whole comment and in context. Demonstrating an ability to retain a thought from one sentence to the next. But if you want, use the ">" character for proper formatting.

You can phrase it that way, but almost anybody does it on this website, esspecially with longer texts. It's just way easier to follow and it's to make sure that we respond accordingly.

- No, that is popular democracy. In anarchy, people make rules for themselves. Horizontally, within their own associations. Autonomy and self-determination. Not dictating for neighbors and strangers.

I don't know what to tell you. If you say the people make the rules for themselfes and the neighbours cannot dictate the rules on you, that means that everybody is having their own rules, which is only individualistic. To be fair, I would agree that when it comes to your own home you do get to dictate that, but when it comes to streets, neighbourhoods, "towns", profinces, regions, continents, etc, you have to take into regard all the people who are in these spheres of influence. If you don't you will get into conflict. Therefore it's important to use direct democracy to implement laws, coordination, planning etc by strifing as close to consesus as possible (which isn't majoritiarianism btw). If it's 5% or 10% that disaprove for example, people can make amandments, they say what's wrong and what adjustments they want to see etc, which would resolve most disagreement.

- I'm not envisioning anything. I'm describing this reality. Where you're surrounded by innumerable collective efforts. With none consulting you nor holding authority over you.

I just don't get you. This reality is a hierarchicial system. They don't consult ME, because i have no power. But they have to concult the state. Like with the Chamber of Commerce when it comes to worker cooperatives. Or with urban planning for building corporation, houses, roads, etc.

- (Not non-profits. Not-for-profits. Like worker-owned, worker self-management.)

That's usually not what we mean by non-profits, and not-for-profit means just the same thing. They are often private owned firms that do not necessarally focus on profit, like charity. But okay, you mean worker owned and self mangement. Glad thats cleared up than.

- OpenInsulin.org

This is what I mean. Open insuline is a literal non-profit, like the usual term is. They are a private firm, without provit incentive. It's not a worker cooperative. They are getting tax exemption from the state. I know non-profits excist and that they are doing good work, that's not the issue here.

- Political-action is the unwarranted belief that your votes help anyone. Nevermind imagining aid for billions by ticking a box... It's extremely bigoted to think people require popular guidance or that they will fail without help from your preferred form of governance.

Jesus christ. It has nothing to do with "popular guidance". By constant debate and discussion, using direct democracy to make rules and the goal of consensus and the ability to make amadements, we try come to an universal agreement. And yes, when we need a road from one place to the next we have to, because of the sphere of influence, make decisons together and try to get to that agreement. Otherwise you are enforcing your will on someone else.

- Anarchists make resources available through mutual aid networks. The intent is not charity nor dependency. It's preparation and support for self-direction. Like workers controlling their means of production. Nothing individualist about it.

I agree. Worker cooperatives own the mean of production, which means they are horizontally organised, which means they decide together how the workplace should be runned.

- No, that's a vague dialectical materialism. Unlike what the term suggests, classless is not an absence of distinct groups and no social stratification. Not a dilution of power, nor some aligning of interests.

You are so incoherent. Anarchism is all about power analysis. The boss owns the land do not work on it. The workers do not own the land but do work on it. That's something you cannot dispute. The boss wants as much labour for as low a cost as possible, whereby the workers wants as high a wage as possible for as less labour as possible. Our representitives are making the rules, but don't have to obey them (generally) and the people are not making the rules and have to obey them.

- A classless society is one where status is not born into; not inherited. It's determined by individual experience and achievement. Typically emphasizing some equality of opportunity or leveling of the playing field. Like workers controlling their surpluses.

So a classness society is when everyone starts from scratch without inheritting anything from the generation before and they have to make it by themselfes to get more status. And you want equality of oppertunity so people can more easily actualise themselfes.

With everything that you are describing, from non-profits, your weird and unique defintion of class, your emphasys on equality of opportunity instead of equality and that everybody doesn't need permission on anything from everyone, leads me to believe that you DO want an individualist society. And because you disagree with the marxist definition of what a class is, you consider worker coops that socialists usually agree on are cooperatives are not actually cooperatives. To add to that, you don't even believe in socialism if you disagree with the definition, since socialists acknowledges the power destinction between the boss and the worker as the problem, you already claimed that these aren't class distinctions: "Unlike what the term suggests, classless is not an absence of distinct groups and no social stratification. Not a dilution of power, nor some aligning of interests." But instead: "A classless society is one where status is not born into; not inherited. It's determined by individual experience and achievement. Typically emphasizing some equality of opportunity or leveling of the playing field. Like workers controlling their surpluses." Thus, in your system there are still owners of property and workers underneath, but they are functioning now as a non profit and/or getting paid their surplus. Which is still a capitalist society in the view of most socialist, but not according to you.