(in) Consistency.

The three central items to which most of the anarchist movement are opposed are the state, the church (or religion), and capitalism (or property). However, when examining the relations between large repressive institutions in seemingly unrelated social areas, it is difficult for socialist libertarians to provide much more than tentative hypotheses positing correlations between similar modes of organization, theorizing and operation. Anarchists, as a general rule, can be relied upon to theoretically oppose the concept of large homogenizing entities in principle, but it is also (or should be) a goal of practical libertarians to direct their critiques at pervasive social assumptions which underlie our tacit everyday acceptance of authority and dogmatic ideologies on an often innocuous and seemingly(!) purely subjective level. Unfortunately, it is difficult, in the absence of any significant organized social movement in our era, for anarchist philosophy as a whole to present a unified front as regards less-tangible constructs and underexposed or underexamined ideologies--even broad subjects such as "the media," which share structural qualities with the familiar demons of church and state, cannot be fit neatly into a rubric of "modern anarchism" (if indeed there is such a thing).
The political realities of anarchism and the its libertarian ideals demand that it maintain flexibility in the face of such seeming inconsistencies, though. As a practical political philosophy, the strongest advantage of anarchism over established political factions is its undefinable borders and unique capacity for embracing and integrating itself with the struggles of any time period. The consistently Heraclitean landscape of pertinent social and political factors practically requires a minimalist governmental philosophy, in the mind of the anarchist, and this provides the basis for the adaptive framework which seems so hodge-podge and uncoordinated to hierarchically-minded individuals.
To illustrate the way in which "anarchism" can simultaneously reject and accept an idea or institution, we need look no further than popular representations of libertarian philosophy: indeed, the (questionably) "Libertarian" American political party favors a set of objectives which are roughly anarcho-capitalist; and the concept of "Christian Anarchism" seems to be philosophically inconsistent with any legitimate definition of anarchism, since it simply replaces the secular power of the state with the ethereal notion of god; similarly, many self-proclaimed anarchists, while espousing an attitude of total antagonism to the interference of outside agencies with the affairs of the individual, have no problem with sacrificing their liberties to another individual (who simultaneously engages in the same codependent self-defeating behavior) in the voluntarily cooperative venture of repression known as "marriage"; finally, there is the familiar and difficult issue of "successful" self-proclaimed anarchists (Noam Chomsky, among others) who possess a small fortune and thus seem to be complicit with at least some aspects of disproportionate distribution of wealth and capitalism.
The simplest and most consistent definition of anarchism is a system of opposition to all hierarchies and reductions of individual liberty, and as such cannot honestly abide any hint of subordination, even subordination which is "voluntary." I use quotations for that word because it seems that when power structures are pervasive (as they are at present), the mind is irretrievably warped by constant exposure to ideas and situations tainted by such structures. Even the most critically-oriented skeptic is likely to succumb to at least some of the conveniences and temptations offered by the almost ubiquitous consumerism and jingoistic (nationalistic) fanaticism which on some days seem perfectly inescapable. Because of the necessary inconsistencies between different conceptions of anarchism, and the tangible political benefits an open-ended value system provides, it behooves the movement to allow room for disagreement within its ranks. This is only in cohesion with the basic ethical precepts of anarchism, which at the very least should always place individual liberties first and organizational unity last.