What makes an anarchist?

It's quite simple to be an anarchist.
You just have to be against state, in any possible way, as organ of political repression and hierarchy, and you have to be against capitalism, as form of economical inequality.

Therefore, only anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism are anarchism.

Proudhonism, "anarchist" individialism, "anarcho"Christianism, "anarcho"primitivism etc. have nothing to do with anarchism. That's just bunch of bullshit.

Jurko, while I identify as an anarcho-communist, I think you're approach is unhelpful.

It may be rude or aggressive, but it's helpful, because I just said what anarchism.

Words are defined partly by their usage.

I agree. My way of writing isn't nice, but still read what I have to say. If you read only posts of people who write in nice way... then... well I have nothing nice to say to you

And given Proudhon was the first to call himself an anarchist I think calling Proudhonism non-anarchist and a "bunch of bullshit" is not sensible.

Many people call themselves and anarchist and still they are not. I can call myself Maoist, but still I oppose to everything that Maoisim represents.

And Proudhonism, individualism, Chrisitian anarchism and even primitivism oppose the state and capitalism - so I really don't understand your reasons for dismissing them as not anarchist.

Proudhonism is not against capitalism. It's for free market economy full of some utopian mumbo-jumbo. It also against syndicates, political fight, creating collation, class war etc. Also, Proudhon in his later works started to defend state as an institution.
Mutualism is free market economy.
Christian "anarchism" is 100% bullshit. How can this be anarchism? Tolstoy advocated end of state because it's not moral and because only ruler should be God. Bakunin once said "we will have rulers on the Earth as long as we have ruler in the sky". Also, how can you merge materialism with idealism? You seems to forget that anarchism is rationalism.
Individualist "anarchism" is a nothing but selfish bourgeoisie philosophy. If we look into Stirner's work he said that state is bad because it oppress individual, but still he didn't have nothing against the case in which individual use state as tool to achieve greater satisfaction in his life.... Real anarchism.
Primitivism "anarchism" is special kind of idiotism. "Hey, let's live in stone age, civilisation is repression..." Yeah, right... like 6 billion people can live as hunters?

Although I do agree they can be dismissed as guides for creating a future society. But anarchism they are.

They are not as they don't reject capitalism and they don't want to create new stateless classless society. They are anarchism because that fool Eltzbacher said so. And when he wrote his book everybody forget that he's was German judge who wanted to understand why some bad people hate the state. Well, he didn't quite understand what's anarchism about, as to him anarchism is "against the state". Anarchism is more about that. It's part of socialism, therefore anarchism starts with Bakunin's book "Statehood and anarchy" (I think that this is right translation to English). I'm not saying that Proudhon, for example, didn't influenced anarchist theory. He did, with his theory of federalism, still he's not an anarchist. He's peti-bourgeoisie philosopher and chauvinistic idiot.

An anarchist rejects the legitimacy of the State, as a severe manifestation of hierarchy and domination. Their opposition to hierarchy and domination ensures also an opposition to capitalism as well as heterosexism, racism, etc. However the opposition to hierarchy and domination is not absolute : we recognise the legitimacy of a parent using coercive force stopping a young child from running into the road to a premature death, to use an example from Chomsky.

I agree with this still.

Anarchism is not only rejecting the State and it's not what's anarchism about in the first place. Radical liberals reject the state, Marxsist-Leninists reject the state (in society they which to create). Are they anarchists? Hell no.

Anarchism have 3 "dimensions of rejecting":
1) State - as hierarchical organisation which creates repression
2) Capitalism - as economical system of class oppression
3) Other repression which can be found in society for example patriarchy, xenophobia, religion etc.

It's important to say that each anarchist must reject capitalism and his goal must be creation of classless society. If you don't want that, you are not anarchist.

Also, important aspect of anarchism is internationalism and organisation, which those individualist etc. "forms" don't accept.

Hm, maybe I missed something I'll fix it in later discussion.

No, Proudhon first calling himself an anarchist is crucial. Previously it had been a slur and a term of abuse. He was the first to provide a clear positive definition of anarchism, so it must carry some weight.

Ok, I accept this. And I also accept Proudhon's theory of federalism, still - he's not an anarchist.
He's bourgeoisie philosopher who advocated free market and later the state. He's was not rationalist but idealist as his ideas came from utopian socialism, but they were not put into something realistic, like in Marx's case, but they remained in that "there is some great idea which controls the world" idealist belief. Marx actually wrote few good analysis of Proudhon in few of his letters, if you want I can post them here and underline some "crucial aspects".
Bakunin is actually first anarchist who started to work on creating anarchist ideology.

And clearly mutualism fits into that description.

I don't understand this part.

There is a difference between capitalism and the free market.

Free market and private property, along with class system and surplus values are major things which create capitalism.
Proudhon wasn't against private property in the way that it was described in Communist Manifesto, which is accepted by Bakunin and Kropotkin.
Proudhon also advocated "really, really" free market which will have elements of solidarity and competition, there will be no monopoly etc. Nothing new, if you read Adam Smith... he also advocated something like this. Still is Adam Smith an anarchist?

Different anarchists have had difference opinions about religious anarchists. I doubt you'd find many who think you cannot be both religious and an anarchist. It's not only Tolstoy, there are more modern anarchists like Ammon Hennancy and Doris Day. Again, it's not that I support them, but I think we can't just call those versions of anarchism we don't like not anarchism - that's dogmatic. As much as I like Bakunin, I think his understanding of religion was very limited, and some religious groups, like the Quakers don't think we should 'obey' God or anything, but instead through behaving as we wish while looking out for others we are expressing God's goodness.

Ok, now explain me how can you believe in some divine creature who controls you and be anarchist? Tell me how can for example "Muslim anarchism" exist? Religion implements hierarchy.... etc. but this is just my critics of religion...
Now, regarding so called "Christian anarchism", in Tolstoy's case, it's not against hierarchy (there's God), it's not against capitalism (it's against industrialisation and for some kind of feudalism), it's not against other repressive relations in society for example patriarchy as Tolstoy was raised in patriarchy and he acted in that way... also it's dogmatic pacifist crap (pardon my words!) and we all know that pacifism only benefits to status que. Also, I'm not going to even start to talk how it's stupid that they still see Bible as one of the major books.
There's noting like "RELIGIOUS ANARCHISM"! Anarchism is against religion and the fact that we anarchist accept people who believe in God, who believe in other divine creatures doesn't mean that we accept this shit... If you read program of CNT from, I think 1912 (?!), you will see that they accept people who believe in God and that those people should have access to their religions needs in future society. I think that this is good and I accept this. Still I despise any attempt to merdge anarchism, as socialist theory, with some kind of religious shit and call that "Christian anarchism". There's no such thing. There's only anarchism and Christianity.

Individualist anarchism is neither "selfish" nor "bourgeois" (c'mon, calling things we don't like Bourgeois is very low...).

Really? Do you know how did Kropotkin defined Stirner's ideology? "Misanthropic bourgeoisie individualism". Was he right? Yes, he was.
Why? Because to Stirner state is problem because it suppress individual personal liberty. He don't care about personal freedom of other people... just his and therefore he has nothing against using the state to suppress other people in other to achieve benefits for himself.
Also, individualists are not against private property nor do they accept revolution...

It is anti-capitalist, Tucker, for example, was a self-professed socialist.

He's useless philosopher.

I agree with your criticism of primitivism, however that doesn't mean it's not anarchism! It just means you don't like it. Anarchism is a broad philosophy with many different currents. - primitivism is one (thankfully very small) current.

Are Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Nationalism then part of anarchist broad philosophy? They have much connection with anarchism as individualism and primitivism.

I have never actually heard of Eltzbacher.

He's German judge and firs one to divide anarchists into individualist and socialist.

Anarchism comes from the Greek anarkia - meaning a rejection of rulers.

Also it means chaos, so what? There was no capitalism in Ancient Greece.

I agree anarchists must be anti-capitalist. And basically all individualists support organisation.

Godwin is against any kind of organised communal life as he believes that communal life and society are not allowing individuals to reach their goal as "rational beings".
Stirner don't care about other people.
Proudhon was against organisations as syndicates etc. which could fight the system or cause revolution as he believed that society can be changed only trough good reforms.
Do you remember Russian revolution? Do you know why did Makhno, Mett and Arshinov wrote Platform? Because individualist rejected organisations and there was no organised anarchist movement to stand against Bolsheviks. We should learn form our history

Although I'm very pro-organisation, I accept that some anarchists like the new insurrectionary types reject it by and large. This does not mean they are not anarchists! It just means they advocate a very different type of anarchism to the one me and you work for.

Different types of anarchism don't exist. There's only one anarchism. It's anti-state, anti-authoritarian and communist ideology.
Insurrectionist (old ones ), syndicalists and platformists don't have the same strategy but their goal is the same. Right?
New insurrectionists are individualists. Many of them are actually alter/anti-globalists who for example are for Tobin's tax and stuff like that which has nothing to do with anarchism.

Ok, so my point is that anarchism is really coherent ideology. The problem is just that there are a lot of stuff in anarchism which are not anarchist.
For example how can anarchism be consisted of liberals, Marxists and Christian?! Every tendency have it's own goal of future society. Is anarchism of free market? No, it's not. Is anarchism for status que? No, it's not. Is anarchism for Paradise? No, it's not. Is anarchism for "achieving new society trough personal evolution" Hell, no!