Then maybe the anarchist FAQ you linked to should be clarified. It claims:
"Some argue that as long as an association is voluntary, whether
it has an hierarchical structure is irrelevant. Anarchists
disagree."
<http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/faq/sp001547/secA2.html#seca28>
It explained hierarchy:
"Control in a hierarchy is maintained by coercion, that is, by the
threat of negative sanctions of one kind or another: physical,
economic, psychological, social, etc. Such control, including the
repression of dissent and rebellion, therefore necessitates
centralisation: a set of power relations in which the greatest
control is exercised by the few at the top (particularly the head
of the organisation), while those in the middle ranks have much
less control and the many at the bottom have virtually none.
"Since domination, coercion, and centralisation are essential
features of authoritarianism, and as those features are embodied
in hierarchies, all hierarchical institutions are
authoritarian. Moreover, for anarchists, any organisation marked
by hierarchy, centralism and authoritarianism is state-like, or
"statist." And as anarchists oppose both the state and
authoritarian relations, anyone who does not seek to dismantle all
forms of hierarchy cannot be called an anarchist."
(But perhaps I'm taking that out of context; I realize the faq took 10 years to write, and I have to run to catch a train.)
If I'm not totally misreading it, I think such statements might lead to the confusion I mentioned within the left.
But that's not to slam the faq, parts of which have really informed me. And maybe a sensible interpretation of that passage is that a consistent anarchist should at least be honest enough to admit that the hierarchy is an unfortunate problem, even if there's currently no clear solution.
Tayssir