In fairness things havent looked too good in our living memory whatsoever.
But you are absolutely on to something, tha the choices you or i or anon or topic writer would make would be different than the choices of those holding political/structural/organizational/social power... which is precisely why we will never actually be in the room where those decisions are made. an anarchist cant be president not because holding office would be antithetical to anarchy, but because of the decisions one has to make in order to obtain and maintain that level of power. an anarchist would refuse their situation WAAAAAAAY before a viable shot at presidency were on the table.
That goes for just about any powerful position, extant or not. i dont think its semantic or a freeze response to the fear of choice or getting high on one's own supply. its definitionally unattainable, an anarchist would cease to exist as an anarchist somewhere closer to the school board level than the UN level.