It's an interesting conceit to create a term and then set about debunking it, but it works, I've learnt some.

You talk a lot about Marxism and little of Anarchism, which can mean different things to different people.

Immediately before reading this there was a piece on how the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was never envisioned as an actual dictatorship, and how the early Soviet Union had many parties representing various parts of the union.

Now your article has reminded me of Chomsky's 'On Anarchism' collection. He didn't really want to lay out exactly how he saw an anarchic society, but the key aspect is that the power all flows from the ground up, there's no top-down hierarchy. He still expected there to be a central collective of representatives overseeing (but not governing) the smooth running of society.

I didn't sound very anarchic, in the traditional sense, more like how the UK system is supposed to work, but without the parties.

Does that leave any room for anarchism to still be centrally based?

Or for that collective of representatives to look like the dictatorship of the proletariat?