Όχι ακριβώς. Στην αναρχία η εξουσία «εξαφανίζεται» καθώς ισοκατανέμεται σε όλα τα μέλη της κοινότητας, όχι με κατάργηση της κοινότητας (γιατί το «ο καθένας κυβερνά τον εαυτό» του, όπως το θέτεις εσύ, κάπως έτσι το καταλαβαίνω). Επομένως κεντρικό χαρακτηριστικό της αναρχίας είναι η άμεση δημοκρατία στο πλαίσιο της τοπικής κοινωνίας («αναρχοκομμουνισμός»).
Φυσικά υπάρχουν και «αναρχοατομικιστικά» ρεύματα τα οποία κλίνουν κάπως περισσότερο προς αυτό που εννοείς εσύ ως αναρχία, αλλά γενικώς πάντα επρόκειτο για περιθωριακή τάση που φλέρταρε επικίνδυνα με τον mainstream φιλελευθερισμό (ο οποίος είναι εξ ορισμού ατομικιστικός), για να καταλήξει τελικά στον «αναρχοκαπιταλισμό». Οι διαφορετικές τάσεις μπορούν να ιδωθούν ως αποτέλεσμα του γεγονότος ότι ο αναρχισμός, γενικά, αποτελεί μία σύνθεση φιλελευθερισμού και σοσιαλισμού, με κάθε ρεύμα να "αναμειγνύει" τα συστατικά σε διαφορετικές αναλογίες (πολύ απλοϊκά τώρα). Από τη Wikipedia (άρθρο Individualist anarchism):
« One view is that the individualist wing of anarchism emphasises
negative liberty, i.e. opposition to state or social control over the individual, while those in the collectivist wing emphasise
positive liberty to achieve one's potential and argue that humans have needs that society ought to fulfill, "recognizing equality of entitlement". Another distinction is that unlike the social wing which advocates common ownership as a means to eliminate unequal economic power, individualist anarchism is supportive of means of production being held privately, and in the case of the most prevalent strain of anarcho-individualism, advocates that goods and services be distributed through markets.»
Επίσης: « The notion of negative liberty is associated with British philosophers such as
Locke,
Hobbes, and
Adam Smith, and positive liberty with continental thinkers, such as
Hegel,
Rousseau,
Herder, and
Marx.»
Και: «Prior to abandoning anarchism, libertarian socialist
Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchism for its opposition to
democracy and its embrace of "
lifestylism" at the expense of
class struggle.
[126] Bookchin claimed that individualist anarchism supports only
negative liberty and rejects the idea of
positive liberty. Anarcho-communist
Albert Meltzer proposed that individualist anarchism differs radically from revolutionary anarchism, and that it "is sometimes too readily conceded 'that this is, after all, anarchism'." He claimed that
Benjamin Tucker's acceptance of the use of a private police force (including to break up violent strikes to protect the "employer's 'freedom'") is contradictory to the definition of anarchism as "no government."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism#cite_note-127 Meltzer opposed
anarcho-capitalism for similar reasons, arguing that since it supports "private armies", it actually supports a "limited State." He contends that it "is only possible to conceive of Anarchism which is free, communistic and offering no economic necessity for repression of countering it."
According to Gareth Griffith,
George Bernard Shaw initially had flirtations with individualist anarchism before coming to the conclusion that it was "the negation of socialism, and is, in fact, unsocialism carried as near to its logical conclusion as any sane man dare carry it." Shaw's argument was that even if wealth was initially distributed equally, the degree of
laissez-faire advocated by Tucker would result in the distribution of wealth becoming unequal because it would permit private appropriation and accumulation».
