ok;-)
Well, Anarchism can mean a lot. Like it is the case with other concepts for social systems, Anarchism has a lot of authors who look at it from different perspectives. Hence, it can mean a lot.
On the most general level, anarchy is the opposite identity of hierarchy. So, while societies organized by the latter tend to (try to) increase the degree of hierarchy in times of crisis or when there is a paradigm shift (e.g. a technological one like the emergence of the Internet), societies that follow anarchical principles of order on the other hand tend to decrease the level of hierarchy in a crisis or during paradigm shifts.
Most anarchical thoughts therefore are about the question of how to set up systems in non-crisis and non-paradigm-shift times, so they can react optimally (=fall apart without any or only little damage) if the situation changes and something fundamental needs to be done about the social structure because things don't work properly anymore.
I hope that was understandable and correct (@adamkokesh?)...
I like this analysis, but it's a bit beyond the immediate definition of anarchy. You can have hierarchy in anarchy as long as it's voluntary, but of course voluntaryism tends towards exactly what you're saying. So the the definition of anarchy isn't no hierarchy, you could say that it implies that.
Why did this comment get flagged?!
thank you, you have given a very good explanation for me,
and this will be an additional science for me.