Anarchism's presence in academia is nonexistent and a majority of anarchist works, especially Proudhon's, are very understudied.

And yet the SEP article cites Proudhon and Malatesta. Good gatekeeping by the way, with the "oh, it's academia, so it's not real anarchism".

Well you're wrong.

This argument is just too strong for me to refute.

Key word here is "evolve". Defending government or authority is not the same thing as evolving those texts. You're not building off of anything, you're just going directly against those texts. There is no evolution here, you're breaking off and going in direct opposition to the anarchist movement.

Okay, so then, at least in your view, there seems to be very limited space to "evolve". Are you saying that someone that recognizes nuance in authority is either not an anarchist or working with a "wrong" definition of authority?

Anarchism is not basic skepticism of authority. Anarchism opposes authority itself. It doesn't just critique authority, it seeks to eliminate it because it is the source of exploitation and oppression.

It seems to me that you're very absolute about your view of anarchism. Maybe that's why you're having a tough time recognizing the academic register?

It isn't. Malatesta opposed all government and so did plenty of other anarchist writers. Justified hierarchy is the invention of Chomsky which has no precedent and is completely worthless as a concept.

Are we just conflating government, authority and hierarchy to all mean the same thing now? In that case, congratulations. You "won".

You lack a great deal of knowledge on those quote-on-quote "foundational works". You don't know what you're talking about. How are you able to discern the validity of works which you know nothing about?

I'm not talking about the "foundational works" of anarchism. You're the one who brought them up. I was initially intrigued by your confident claims and the logic behind them.