> What I don't understand is why this is called anarchism. I tend to think
> that once you allow a polity with coercive power, it is not anarchy. I
> guess a democracy with a very flat power structure is in line with the
> spirit of the old time anarchists, but I honestly don't think it is
> anrachism; this is one reason I don't call myself an anarchist, even
> though people with a very similar viewpoint apply this term to
> themselves.
It does reflect the understanding that organization is required in human society, and that even the most open and democratic organization requires some compromise. Frankly, a world without such compromises is chaos, not anarchy, and would rapidly turn into a violent, extremely authoritarian rule of the strong over the weak.