As I understand it, anarchism rejects structure, control. I don't know how to make it simpler. You'll need to reread the definition of Anarchy.

The whole point of anarchy means that there's is no structure. No. None. Absent. It isn't organised.

Again, please read the definition of Anarchy. I don't accept the view that there are different flavours of anarchy. How many different stages of no control and no structure can there be? No means absent. There are no other degrees of absent.

Any structure begets a hierarchy. Anarchy has no structure. No means of control.

Although I screwed up my first answer, I would still suggest that you read some Nietzsche. He rejects anarchy and is critical of those of his era, but I believe that his philosophy embodies a fair number of the elements.

I'm a naïve Nietzsche student but I am wedded to several concepts: there is no such thing as truth which he writes as "Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions" and "There are no facts, only interpretations."

I observe that in today's.. I was going to write society .. world, as it moves towards anarchy, the words "my truth" are used in place of reference to facts almost obsessively by the youngest generations; and reliance on, for example, people being male and female (generally) is abandoned in favour of self-referential definitions (sic): a female is a female if they think they are female ascribes to the key tenet of nil-structure and nil-control. My dog is a cow because when I ask it if it is a cow, it barks. I love it. The dictionary is dead. Whether someone physically exists in society is a product of not yet being cancelled - based that anyone, literally anyone with standing or not, can take offense and relate "their truth" (with that implication of interpretation) of an exchange to enough people that people loose all status.

These are small steps to anarchy, but steps none the less.

I'm looking forward to punk 2020s-style. I was there for the 70s version.

Like you say, there's lot of schools of thought around this. I think most everyone acknowledges that you have to have some level of organization in order for society to function. The question is, at what scale?

Some would say anarchy can exist alongside a state. Anarchy is how a community meets its needs when the state doesn't, filling in the gaps between the broader pillars. The idea is that anarchy can "grow past" the state by outperforming larger institutions that don't benefit from the same entrenchment in local community. I see this as a useful perspective to approach mutual aid from, for instance.

Others view the state and larger systems as an inherent threat to communities' ability to organize themselves. As authoritarians seek greater power, they seek to undermine communities' self-determination so power can be consolidated under the state. This is where historical tension between anarchists and state communists has arisen. People in this camp aren't rejecting organization altogether, but view larger systems as having inherently corrupting incentives.

I tend toward the former personally, but know a lot of folks of the latter variety and see a lot of value in it too. I think it'll always be a balancing act between local, community-driven structure and broader, country-scale structure.