When building our foundation for this critique of anarchism, your first premise lies on one falsehood in regards to anarchist theory. The idea that the ideology is purely something based on an abstract moral framework is just untrue at best and purposefully disingenuous at worst. Most anarchists, from my experience talking to them, believe that morality is something that is purely subjective, since without any god (no god no masters) there is no way to build any kind of abstract materialist framework for objective morality (you face issues like the is-ought problem). Instead, there can be many explanations for the anarchist rejection of the state, which though still heavily flawed, have nothing to do with morality directly. From being a counter-revolutionary body (as Daniel Baryon), to being completely unnecessary to achieve a communist society (Zoe Baker) to just being dysfunctional (much like the Marxist critique of capitalism). Your accusations of anarchism being a morally based system is a lot like how a conservative might view Marxism. That is to say-- they don't paint the full picture.

Your next few points aren't as essential, so I will spend less time refuting them. First of all, when you say

> "[T]heir belief that political and economic systems are the result of a society as large’s beliefs, rather than the material conditions that society is allocated by the capitalists."

this not only contradicts actual anarchist theory, it misunderstands Marxist Historical-Materialism as well. Marxists make it explicitly clear that capitalism is not only a new system, it is a temporary one, and the idea that political and economic systems change throughout history via capitalists is already presupposing that capitalism is a system that has existed since the beginning of history, which is false. More onto the statement that anarchists think that history and systems progress based on what the people want is incredibly untrue. If anarchists thought that systems are based on general will, then why would the oppose the current system, which was supposedly founded on general will?

Also, you fail to recognize any of the inner workings of a gift economy. The gift economy, though not shared by all anarchists, much less all anarchist communists, still lies on the same principles of a marxian planned economy

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need"

They believe, like all communists, that the people will willingly work as much as they can, and will be given what they need. "

You say

> "On the other hand, a planned economy solves shortage by allocating resources from other, more profitable sectors, a key advantage planned economies enjoys over market economies. Meanwhile, a gift economy has no planning or market capabilities set in place to regulate shortages"

Yet, I see no way that anarchism doesn't do the exact same thing, you give no elaboration on this.

The part about the police, however, is probably the worst part of this essay. And that's a high bar. You fundamentally misunderstand the entire functions and purpose of a proletarian state when you imply the only difference between a DOTP and a DOTB is the fact of ownership. No, actually, police will NOT exist in a Socialist society. Because there are certain aspects of the bourgeois state (it's apparatus, ownership, and purpose) that are directly incompatible with the proletarian state-- this is why the paris commune fails, because it never properly changed the functions of the state. The standing army, the police, bureaucracy, etc, are all examples of inherently bourgeois industries for the reasons that you even state in the essay(even Marx and Lenin agree with this.)

> "Marxists and Anarchists believe that all cops are bastards, because they have opted to betray their class in the service of those with capital."

This is you literally stating how these positions, these institutions, are founded for the purpose of alienation but you fail to see any way as to how this could possibly be applied in an "Actually Existing Socialist" society. This is just absurd.

Lastly, anarchist have clear alternatives to the military problem. Have you even read anarchist anthropologists? Graeber and such? Or, better yet, Chris Beaumont has a 40 page work explicitly talking about Anarchist military strategies and structure. It has been proven that grassroot, guerilla, strategies are much more effective.

Thank you for the time you spent writing this essay, and I hope you take criticism well!