The idea is kind of two fold I think.

Communists say that After The Revolution™, society eventually becomes a classless, stateless society and everyone just produces for the common good and receives what they need, and there's no need for money to force people to work, nor for guys with sticks to go beat people up.

So even state communists, usually they're saying their authoritarian government is meant as a stepping stone towards that.

Anarchists have the same goal, except they think once you make the state to break up the bourgeoisie, then that state is going to perpetuate itself and you're never going to move beyond it to the better world, so their organizing tends to be based on non hierarchy. Build the world you want to see today, don't build authoritarian structures that are supposed to break down authoritarianism tomorrow.

I don't understand how the monopoly on violence can be abolished, or how it can be prevented from arising again. I don't understand how an anarchist society will have space for the large contingent of people who would want to recreate a hierarchical state with a monopoly on violence.

The idea is, if you had a society where no one had bosses and everyone had their needs already met, and your neighbor Phil showed up and said "we should take over, let's get some guys and make me the king. I'll give you extra food" you wouldn't have any reason to join him because you already have what you need. And of someone started doing that everyone else would just beat him up for trying.

To me, like all utopian ideologies, I see it as more of a north star than a thing you could implement. Ask yourself if you have two choices, which is the less coercive one to get what your org needs done, and that's probably the way to go. It's nebulously defined just as Communism is nebulously defined.

There are good writings on it but I'm not a nerd so I can't think of any off the top of my head sadly.

Some of these things seem wrong to me, but I don't have the Literature to know otherwise. But this in particular:

Ask yourself if you have two choices, which is the less coercive one to get what your org needs done, and that's probably the way to go

I think I disagree with this? Are there more coercive methods to a better world we're just sitting on?

I mean, I don't think so. But I would love that a lot, even if it means a structure that resembles authoritarianism, or is even just merely closer to authoritarianism than total anarchy.

That said, maybe "coercion" means something different between us. I think disruptive protest is coercive, but also good, for example

It's more about hierarchical social structures than like... coercing a boss to accept a union. Like you shouldn't have one person in your group who can kick you out or make you do things if you don't want to, or no one should be forced to work a job to make ends meet, through the coercive power of wage labor.

That's not the same as like, you and your co workers getting together and saying if the boss doesn't negotiate we'll go on strike / slash his tires / what have you. That is coercive, in a way, but it's not really the same thing.

Once I tried to read that "guillotines are bad" essay that they like to disseminate but it was too boring and preachy. That's my only knowledge of anarchist theory

Anarchists don't really have the same goal as Marxists, since the "classless, stateless society" the latter wants will still have an "administration of things", which is really just a state in disguise (but Marx doesn't call it as such because he only saw the state merely as a tool for class oppression) as it is a bureaucracy. Just another form of government.

The Raddle wiki has a page that deals with this myth: https://raddle.me/wiki/Marxism_End_Goal

I have not read up a huge amount but I think the standard answer is something along the lines of that anarchism does not mean lack of organising, just lack of hierarchy.

After a revolution there would still be larger structure and organising but would, ideally under an anarchistic viewpoint, be bottom-up, voluntary and truly democratic.

There’s a lot of different types of anarchism and lots of different answers to how this would theoretically work. E.g. anarcho-syndicalism is focused on the idea of anarchist trade unions seizing control of production.

How to prevent people concentrating and amassing power under these sorts of systems is obviously a big problem and I don’t think there’s any good answer other than you need mass class consciousness and people motivated against allowing that.

Note that non anarchist philosophies also struggle with the question of "how do we prevent our system from being taken over by the badguys?" Whether it's monarchists saying "this system works great if the monarch is good but the trick is to make sure a doofus doesn't become monarch", or democracies wondering how we can prevent a demagogue from taking power and abolishing the democracy via popular vote. Even communists have the same problem: whatever administration you set up, how do you prevent it from turning itself into something terrible that's bad for people?

So yes, anarchism doesn't solve it but nothing else does either, IMO.

I know a lot of Marxists love to engage in violent fantasies about what to do about anarchists and ancoms but the end world they both describe is very nebulous. It's not that different, to me.

Having things organized in some way is not against anarchist principles but online Marxists love to talk about purging them and shit idk it's so weird and aggro.