anarchism

It would seem antithetical to provide a single authoritative definition for something like anarchism. Here is a list of different definitions I've seen:

Graeber

David Graeber described himself as an anarchist with a "small a". I interpret that as meaning being inclusive to all those who wanted to operate without coercion. To me, it's the idea that there isn't one right way to do it. Graeber also insisted that anarchism is something that one does not just something that one believes.

When members of a group of people object to some form of domination, and that causes them to imagine a world without it, and that in turn causes them to reexamine and change their relations with each other … that’s anarchy, whether or not you decide to pin a name on it and whatever that name may be. - from anarchy — in a manner of speaking

LeGuin

Ursela K. LeGuin wrote in her book The Day Before the Revolution: “What is an anarchist? One who, choosing, accepts the responsibility of choice.”

Chomsky

In a talk Chomsky gave in the 1980's he defined anarchists as people who believe that coercive authority must be justified. He gives an example of pulling his daughter out of the way of a speeding car. This is a coercive intervention, however, hardly anyone would argue that it was unjustified....

Kant

According to Kant, Anarchy is a form of social organization that allows for individual freedom, has a democratic rule of law, and that is not predicated on violence. Kant dismissed this mode of social organization as impossible. This is still the most common reaction to anarchism from those who share this definition of it. anarchism is the belief that such societies are possible and desirable.

anarchism vs. democracy

Historically anarchists have been opposed to democracy, identifying it as another form of rule. To be against rule was to therefor be against democracy. To these thinkers, democracy always involved a demos (a polity) enforcing its decisions through kratos (power). Its not just that someone ends up getting coerced here. Exactly who makes up the demos is historically fraught. Power in a democracy is seen as legitimate only if it flows from the people but when that power is used against people those getting coerced typically are categorized outside the polity.

Some anarchists like to define anarchy as true democracy. Thinkers like Graeber liked to do this by contesting the modern conception of democracy as voting for representative. Graeber would point out that the whole idea of voting was an aristocratic past time and that democracy, in Ancient Greece at least, was conceived of as direct democracy. Representatives were periodically chosen by partition (ie drawing of lots).

Some, like youtuber Andrewism, take issue with this use of the word democracy. He also argues that even direct democracy can constitute unjustifiable rule over others.

I don't know if I really have an opinion here. I like Graeber's use of the word as a rhetorical strategy. Democracy is used as a stand in for ethical good. What precisely makes something a democracy is rarely talked about. Graeber's use of the word makes it strange again and makes me think about what it means to practice democracy and to what degree I have ever experienced it. Considering that I don't think I've ever participated in democracy and I don't live in one, I think it might be worth a try. It certainly seems preferable to the current system.