Political Memes

You inferred that, and I already directly answered this question.

Apparently, you didn't really make it clear to me.

I think it is implied that logistical managers to have authority over workers

I begin to see where the misunderstanding is coming from. I don't think that some logistical management implies authority. By "authority" I mean a position of command and control. Just because someone is in charge of logistical planning, doesn't mean they get to fire me.

Genuine question, when would you consider something authoritarian?

When any questioning of an existing hierarchy is being punished by the authority.

This was in my definition.

No it wasn't. You said "without political institutions or hierarchical government". This leaves out other hierarchies, like economic, ethnic or gender hierarchies.

Anarchist thinkers tend to emphasize the lack of statehood more than the hierarchy thing though. Their primary goal is the abolishment of government.

Pardon my french: That is some grade-A bullshit. From the very beginning of the political movement we call "anarchism", it was at least also about the abolition of capital. Yes, the abolition of the state is always an important part. But anarchism is rooted in power analysis which is highly skeptical of any hierarchy. One of the most famous quotes by Proudhon was "Property is theft", after all.

We actually completely agree on the practical results of an anarchist society

That's not what I'd call an anarchist society. This would be an "anarcho-capitalist" society. In anarchist society, all means of productions would be held in common.

I want you to think really hard about the analogy I gave you, so I’ll type it out again. Humans eat food, it’s necessary to life. Does that mean that the definition of “human” absolutely has to include “something that eats food”? No, it doesn’t. That would mean that anything that eats food would be human. I can’t stress enough how important and apt this analogy is.

You are really not talking sense. You said "eating food" is necessary for humans. That means that it's a necessary feature of a human. It is however not a sufficient feature of a human. Not everything that eats food is human. But if something doesn't eat food, you can rule out that it is a human, since it doesn't satisfy a necessary condition. Here's the Wikipedia page, since it's such an important point for you.

I never claimed that monopoly of violence is a sufficient feature of a state. It is necessary, though. If something doesn't have the sufficient property of a monopoly of violence, it is not a state. That is not a definition I made up for my world-view to function. There is consensus in political science that this is a necessary property of a state.