I've seen plenty of anarchists who do recommend tearing everything down. Antifa has clothed themselves in the name of supposedly being against fascism, but they define fascism as any current system of government. They're anarchists, though the media covers them as "activists."

You're right about number 2, though.

The "defund the police" movement originated with BLM, not Antifa. And the Wikipedia page[0] for it mentions the plan, in general terms

   supports removing funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources. Activists who use the phrase may do so with varying intentions; some seek modest reductions, while others argue for full divestment as a step toward the abolition of contemporary police services. Activists who support the defunding of police departments often argue that investing in community programs could provide a better crime deterrent for communities; funds would go toward addressing social issues, like poverty, homelessness, and mental disorders.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police

"Black Lives Matter" and "Defund the Police" are two pieces of evidence that show that the left is terrible at creating names for their movements.

They'd get a lot more support if they had gone with "Black Lives Matter Too!" and "Reform the Police" or some other phrase that actually suggested their actual desires.

I think this is a red herring. These movements were unpopular because of what they asked for, not the way they phrased their request.

Only racists and trolls with an agenda refused to comprehend that Black Lives Matter didn't mean "Only Black Lives Matter." And continued to refuse to comprehend no matter how many times it was explained to them.

There's nothing the left can do about intentional bad faith representation of their messaging, that's just par for the course.

Sure bud. As a semi anarchist, here is a very widely accepted definition of fascism.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...

Edit: you're also very wrong about number 2, you just haven't been exposed to people proposing solutions.

Here is a 20 year old very famous book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_Prisons_Obsolete%3F?wprov=...

> But the description "police exist to enforce existing power structures" implies that the power structures are illegitimate, which suggests that the police are as well

I think this is fairly evident, yes.

> which in turn suggests we should tear it all down and start over.

Well it certainly suggests something should be done. Tearing it all down seems like a straw man though. Certain aspects of it should certainly be torn down.

> But I've never seen anyone who 1) recommends tearing everything down and 2) has a realistic (or even defined) plan to rebuild it.

I do think it's very funny when people use their own ignorance as evidence for an argument.

>I do think it's very funny when people use their own ignorance as evidence for an argument.

Your own argument comes from "I think this is fairly evident" (at the top of your post). How is that different from ignorance?

That statement is a follow up to my earlier argument (in the GP comment) which includes substance. But saying "I have never seen evidence so there must not be evidence" is a clear logical fallacy.