Paulie, I wrote in that discussion:
BH) When pro-liberty voters boycott elections, that doesn't weaken statism, it strengthens it. No state will ever be overthrown through boycott (i.e. personal secession). Your choices are either flight, revolt, geographic secession, reform, or surrender. You can pretend all you want that [boycotting electoral politics] is akin to revolt, but it looks, walks, and quacks like surrender. I'm not going to argue that anarchists should vote -- i.e. pursue the reform option. I think any anarchist who actually believes what he says should pursue either flight, revolt, or geographic secession. (BH
I wrote here:
BH) The only practical reason I can think of for an anarchist to join a political party is to promote the sort of radical decentralism that might allow local experiments in anarchy. Otherwise, politics would seem to be self-expression merely for its own sake, and so the Party should proudly call itself anarchist and purge all statists. (BH
Thus I think 1) wise delayed-gratification anarchists (e.g. Chuck Moulton?) should help out whatever party best promotes decentralism and smaller government, and not insist that the party avoid endorsing the existence of the state; and 2) unwise immediate-gratification anarchists should insist that their political party be explicitly anarchist and should not tolerate statists in their midst.
Asking why anarchists don't insist on purging statists is not nearly the same thing as advising anarchists to leave.