I would challenge the so-called "apolitical" and "moderate" people to define what exactly it is they affirmatively believe in, not just what they don't. When people use vague, comfortable expressions like "We should do what's best for the country", they should also define what exactly that means in their eyes -- WHAT they actually think is best for the country -- if they really want me to take them seriously rather than as just some silly posers who stand for nothing and want to pretend that that's an actual and morally superior position.
The subject of communism has also been brought up and debated. While I described myself as an anarchist and a socialist in the OP, as to the communist subset of socialist thought, I'm actually neutral on that. I strongly favor social ownership and worker and/or consumer control of the means of production (socialism), but have no real preference if people want to retain the formality of some individual possessions so long as they don't use them for purposes of accumulation. I understand that some people are concerned about the whole privacy issue that comes with fully realized communism (100% social ownership). To me, the main thing is that civil society reign supreme, as in that it replace the state and commercial sectors.
Some have suggested that anarchism and socialism/communism are opposites. They're really not at all. I think that mistaken thinking comes from the view that says socialism and communism are authoritarian in nature and that anarchism represents extreme individualism; perhaps the result of incorrectly associating all socialisms with Marxism and its troubled history. Anarchism refers to opposing authority, as in hierarchical or non-egalitarian social structures. It should then surprise no one that most anarchists, including myself, embrace very egalitarian economic views in addition to the politics of participatory democracy and cultural equality.
In my observation, the Marxist is basically an anarchist who believes that the ends justify the means and that mentality is precisely what leads to compromising the integrity of their theoretically egalitarian goals. As much is borne out in the real-world societies built by anarchists and Marxists respectively. The ones built by Marxists tend to either collapse (like the old Soviet Union) or get compromised completely until they eventually just adopt neo-liberal capitalism (e.g. China) or some variation on feudalism (e.g. North Korea). Whether you consider the Ukrainian Free Territory, the communes that were erected during the Spanish Civil War, or the present-day Zapatistas of Chiapas, Mexico, or the functionally autonomous Rojava region within Syria, or any number of other examples, one can see that, by contrast, anarchist societies rarely collapse. That's because they earn the trust of the population by being transparent and not oppressing them.
The biggest difficulty that anarchist communities have had historically hasn't been internal collapse, but rather fending off invasions. If one thinks about it, most of these societies have been established in the context of a civil war or some other situation wherein the central state may have had bigger threats to worry about (perhaps drug cartels taking over major cities for example) and distract them, to which end they generally only last as long as the war or extraneous situation does. I don't pretend to have all the answers to that problem. The point, however, is that anarchistic systems of government and economy work. They DON'T result in some breakdown of the social order, as detractors who posit that anarchism means chaos suggest. In fact, they're way more likely to RESULT FROM a breakdown of the social order than to cause one.
