We do not seek to totally de-stratify and free desire, but rather to do so as much as possible, as much as we can. Freeing desire means freeing it from stratification, from being-fixed. We are not trying to create a system, this is the fundamental flaw in your understanding of insurrectionary communism. Insurrectionary communism is a label being applied to a set of individuals who share certain goals, rather than a fixed system. We do not have rules like 'desire must be totally destratified' or 'desire must be totally stratified'. We simply want to de-stratify as much as possible. That is our collective goal. We do not see it as a rule, a law, something that everyone must follow, but rather as something we urge others to subscribe to because it is in line with our own goals.
When I say morality is context-independent, I mean it exists as a code of 'right and wrong' that is supposedly independent of the subjective opinions of those who created and follow it. There is no morality because morality is an external code of right and wrong that I have no obligation to follow, and one that only exists as a phantasm of the mind. It has no substance, and it is created in order to justify a certain order of things. What is moral and what is not is generally dependent on whoever's in power. When racists are overwhelmingly powerful, racism is generally seen as moral. When a king is, monarchy is moral. When liberal democracy is in power, human rights and liberty is moral. Moral philosophers devote significant time to determining what is moral and what is not, but ultimately their moral frameworks will have little to no influence on what a society considers moral as a whole. Indeed, it would be fairer to say Insurrectionary Communism is much more opposed to the morality of society rather than the obscured moral theories of the philosophers. This, however, does not mean the moralistic philosophers are immune to our critique. We oppose morality because we refuse to follow laws, codes, and order. We oppose morality because we refuse to let something external to us dictate our actions. We oppose morality because we refuse to allow a set of rules to say what is right and wrong, rather than our own will. In our view, the child rapist is just as moral as their killer, because there is no morality. We hate the child-rapist nonetheless because they disgust us and infringe upon our will. Ultimately, what is right and wrong is up to whoever has the most force and numbers at their disposal. Our order of amorality can only be created when we have sufficient force and numbers, sufficient violence. Perhaps it will fall to some movement that has greater violence at its disposal. Perhaps it will never amount to anything at all. The child-rapist may as well attempt to bash in the skulls of their opponents. I don't see why not. This doesn't mean they won't have opponents, this doesn't mean they won't have enemies. It just means they can try to do as they like.