This is mostly a serious question. Also, not for the tankies/MLs. I already know what your answer to that question is. I may not always agree with you on everything, but you do have an answer that if the conditions became right, could actually work.
No, this is for the type of anarchist completely against the wall, gulags, seemingly any amount of getting hands dirty. What is the solution to those types of people? There are so many of them in the US, a lot of which are heavily armed, that they could easily topple a socialist system, and even if they didn't do that, their existence would be incompatible with any marginalized group living their lives, since they love to harass them at best, outright murder them at worse. So what's the solution? Anarchists often seem to avoid this, seemingly believing that if there was a socialist or communist society, they would just say "aw shucks, guess I was wrong about that. Guess I'll no longer be racist or xenophobic!"
So am I missing something, what's the answer?
That's because in the us the only people claiming to be anarchists after the fall of the IWW were counter cultural people like Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Ruben, then later primitivists like Zerzen. It was only really in the past 30 years that class struggle anarchism has come back significantly.
That said, I think this website tends to have a narrow view of who hippies were. They had a lot of names for themselves: flower children, beatniks, yippies, diggers, socialists, etc. The media painted them under a single brush; maybe a simple narrative has more propaganda value. You might say "SDS weren't hippies!" And you'd be right that they dont fit the category neatly, but newspapers at the time often referred to them as such.
If anarchists are rebrands hippies, it's only because hippies are rebranded anarchists.