Slop.

Yeah a huge part of the problem is ultimately how we get everyone ideologically educated into the same spot. In the process of achieving that there is the additional issue of what you do with the people who are resistant to it, or what you do with those who outright oppose it. This is the kind of problem the ancoms in Nicaragua ran into, or the Spanish anarchists in Revolutionary Catalonia having totally-not-prison-camps filled with fascists. These are real material problems that we will run into and it's these issues that make the anti-authoritarian anarchists a problem, because they will become reactionary opponents when they see you running prisons. I'm totally cool with the anarchists that understand authority is necessary and that anarchism isn't anti-authoritarianism.

I know it's kind of a cliche to bring up Engels' On-Authority but it's so fucking important that people realise some degree of use of authority is totally necessary even if you don't completely agree with marxists. There's no anarchist project that hasn't run into the problem and when they do they need to do something. A short excerpt:

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

Also Parenti: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-PHYj1vb-w

It is necessary to understand that these elements of state authority are constructed in reaction to something, for a purpose. It is an unpleasant solution to an unpleasant problem.

I don't see why you feel the need to make that jab when what you said literally just isn't a response to what the first person said, because they stipulated "capitalist 'democracy'".