Heck, even Chomsky is an anarchist. I don't know what the comment to you was insinuating, that we shouldn't fix things?
Big https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/330/819/e47... energy.
Big https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/330/819/e47... energy.
Obviously that anarchism means, being opposed to all government activity, regulation and rules, so he cannot call him an anarchist if he wants rules for a river. But the thing with anarchism is, that there is not really a authorative definition accepted and in use ..
Sure there is:
anarchism (n.) "political doctrine advocating leaderlessness," 1640s; see anarchy + -ism.
anarchy (n.) 1530s, "absence of government," from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a government" (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), abstract noun from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" (see an- (1)) + arkhos "leader" (see archon).
Well, I kind of tried that method for some time, but for some reasons I was not able to avoid confusion. Maybe because people care more about what a word means to them today and not what it meant 2000 years ago?
(In my opinion, there is allmost no anarchist opposed to all authority - they might say so, but only because they negate the existence of informal hierachies and do not consider collectivism (theft) as a shape of authority for instance. Lots of hypocrisy going on there, but there are self aware and righteous folks among them)
The idea of the peaceful anarchism like gandhi represented is, to convince people to just stop following unjust orders. No need for genocide this way and he showed, that this can work sometimes.
The problem I see rather with the natural developing of informal hierachies in group dynamics. In other words, there will be leaders, even if they say everyone is equal.
Try instead, "a society free from unjust hierarchies". Most anarchists are comfortable with the idea of democracy, elections, and delegation of decision making. As long as it's consensual and democratic. Think of like, "hey, we need a treasurer to manage the finances".
Anarchism is not a unified idea. Anarcho syndicalism is different from Anarcho communism is different from Anarcho socialism.
What would be a just hierarchie?
"Most anarchists are comfortable with the idea of democracy, elections, and delegation of decision making. As long as it's consensual and democratic"
Most anarchists I met, not so much. Till the extreme point of "anarchists don't vote". Not even in a small group. There is a consensus or there is no decision.
I like the idea of doing things in a consensus. But only one person in a bad mood can then block everything. But when you remove that person, it is not really a democratic consensus anymore, but majority rule .. which is fine by me, but is probably not "pure anarchism" anymore.
I think incrementalism is a dead end too - at some point we need to make some hard cuts away from current systems, but it's self defeating to not acknowledge the material reality in front of us.
"we are working with a federation composed of 40 other anarchist groups. We elect a delegate and delegate small decisions to them, and they can be removed easily by the group."
"We have a safety officer on the factory floor who has the power to stop the work of others if there's a concern. They can be replaced easily"
"A teacher removing students who are disruptive to learning, but finding them alternative learning models."
An unjust hierarchy is when one person has power over another for no reason and whose power is self reinforcing or permanent. (A wealthy capitalist has more power, and gains power faster than a factory worker.)