This URL contains my definition of an anarchist:

http://strategic-edge.org/anarchist.php

An anarchist is simply a person that doesn't thing government has the right to use force to micromanage their lives and steal their money.

Just who is this Mike the Anarchist guy?

http://strategic-edge.org/mike.php

Perhaps "Mike" is an SEO "engineer" or "consultant" looking to boost the pagerank of his pages. This website has anarchist material, and so, he's trying to get some legit links to his own site.

Too bad his definition of anarchism suffers from the same delusions that caused him to write the above article.

Anarchism isn't merely someone opposed to government, but to all hierarchy. That's why it's "an-archy". No head. That also means no "boss" or hierarchy of the church, or companies, or business.

People who believe that there can be a "free market" anarchy are fools. That's meant literally, because the capitalist propagandists came up with the term "free market" to soften the term "market", which people didn't trust. They used "free market" as a eupehmism for "economic liberalism". They're trying to fool us.

In an anarchist system, government is minimized, and is controlled by the people. Government exists for whatever the people need it for. If the people don't want war, the government won't conduct war. If the people don't care about a space program, there won't be a space program.

If the people want there to exist a marketplace for exchange of goods for money, the government will help create that and maintain it. And if the people don't want a market, then the government won't make it happen. You can have an anarchist-communist system, where things are produced communally. That is the original and persistent dream of anarchism: a world of communes.

The dream of a global bazaar as imagined by American libertarians is not anarchism - it's economic liberalism, or a modified form where the government regulates the size of business so it remains small.

Also, it's not possible to have money without a government. Gold was worthless without three continents worth of governments using gold as money. So called "fiat money" is just as devoid of intrinsic worth. So markets without governments are possible only in small scale.

The anarchist mode of production would involved small cells of production, and the workers would control the company. Much of their week would be spent working, and some hours would be spent managing the company. There would be no permanent "bosses", and no owners.

There would also be solo workers, but generally, people would work together, because we have some expectations of the quality and quantity of goods, and the only way to achieve these today is to have people organized into "companies"... or to use another term "worker-run cooperatives" or "communal factories".