anarhcism is defined by wikipedia as:

anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful, or, alternatively, as opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. proponents of anarchism, known as “anarchists”, advocate stateless societies based on voluntary associations.

i disagree.

wikipedia definition makes an error in focusing on a state. state is a very useful organizational element. problem is not what state is, but how it functions. all states today, and in the past, restrain free will of individuals to some extent. it is not a problem what organizational units there are, but what they do. but the role of state in restriction of free will is extremely overblown.

second error is mentioning authority and hierarchy as negative. there is absolutely nothing wrong with authority and hierarchy. authority and hierarchy are necessary and in majority of cases are welcomed by individuals. i accept the authority of my plumber in the subject of plumbing. i accept hierarchy of my mentor because she is teaching me. i accept the hierarchy of air traffic control because they have the information and knowledge to control the air traffic.

to me it is a big shame that wikipedia does not define something as positive as anarchism in a more inspiring light.

here is my take on the anarchism definition:

anarchism is an organization of society based only on unconstrained free will of individuals. anarchism does not aim to restrain the free will of individuals in any way, but allows it and supports it.

above definition depends on definition of free will. defining free will is a big task. this is where the belief must kick in. everybody knows what is free will, especially when it is constrained. it is hard to put it in words, but there is a belief that it exists. if you believe it does not exist, then anarchism will make little sense to you, and you will favor systems which direct individuals without allowing their free will to be satisfied. if you believe free will exists and is one of the most important elements of human existence, then you will favor a system like anarchism or anything that is similar and supports free will.

i am an optimist, and it is my belief that most of today’s society supports free will of individuals. i do not see today’s societies as perfect, but as positive and constantly improving.

important notes:

to believe that anarchism is the right way of doing things, you must believe that free will of individuals is not something to be afraid of. it only requires more experience in putting all the additional parameters together. but if we figured out space travel, i think we can figure out not restraining each other and understand ourselves what the limits are in our behavior, without anyone conditioning us through punishment.

anarchism can not be achieved through revolution, but evolution. think thousands of years. anyone trying to change something now, has other motives than establishment of anarchism. anarchism starts from yourself, and then others.

hope this clears some prejudice.

ps for those who are more versed in discussions on social organization and free will, i assume this post is superficial and dogmatic. i have to repeat that anarchism is, for me at least, superficial and dogmatic, and i see no error in that perception. anarchism, as described above, requires a lot of belief and lack of research. very similar to religion or any other dogma.