I claimed, "If an opinion doesn't touch the question of when violence is justifiable, it's not a political opinion.". Brian Mastenbrook asked, "Doesn't this imply that there are no politics amongst anarchists?" As I understand it, the underpinning of this question is that anarchists do not accept or consider justifiable the kinds of state violence that everyone else considers not only justifiable but usually morally obligatory.
Leaving aside current deep philosophical differences among anarchists about the question of when non-state violence may or may not be justifiable, I think the discussions we normally characterize as political still, usually, boil down to questions of violence.
Of course, the most usual example of politics is entirely, 100%, about when violence is justifiable: it concerns either what policies the State is to enforce using its Westphalian monopoly on justifiable violence, or who will make that decision. Taking as an the example