Facism would allow for no free exchange - My way or the highway... hmm... "If you're not with us.." George W. "If you don't like it..." or the most reviled: "America, love it or leave it".
Anarchy, I agree, is too often confused with total chaos and unfairly paired with violence.
"Anarchism, historically speaking, is concerned mainly with man in his relation to society. Its ulitmate aim is always social change; its present attitude is always one of social condemnation, even though it may proceed from an individualist view of man's nature; it's method is always that of social rebellion, violent or otherwise. But even among those who recognize anarchism as a socio-poltical doctrine, confusion still exists. Anarchism, nihilist, and terrorism are often mistakenly eqated, and in most dictionaries will be found at least two definitions of the anarchist." ..(and later).. "I shall treat anarchism, desite it's many variations: as a system of social thought, aiming at fundamental changes in the structure of society and particularly--for this is the common element uniting all its forms--at the replacement of the authoritarian state by some form of nongovernmental co-operation between free individuals."
Anarchism, George Woodcock
The anarchists concieve a society in which all the mutual relations of its members are regulated, not by laws, not by authorities, whether self-imposed or elected, but by mutual agreements between the members of that society, and by a sum of social customs and habits--not petrified by law, routine, or superstition, but continually developing and continually readjusting, in accordance with the ever-growing requirements of a free life, stimulated by the progress of science, invention, and the steady growth of higher ideals. No ruling authorities, then. No government of man by man; no crystallization and immobility, but a continual evolution--such as we see in nature".
Modern Science and Anarchism, Kropotkin
I think those are excellent definitions. Never really took the time to look them up, but it should come as no surprise that they strike a chord in me
I think that, too often the idea of Anarchy is maligned because Anarchists, almost by their very nature, will differ on how (or, indeed, if) anarchy needs to "be imposed" or "it will occur". "Imposing" Anarchy implies violence - I like to think that it will occur, but not in my lifetime. Anarchy may quite possibly remain nothing but an unachievable model society.
I really believe Anarchy is the only medium (edit: system) condusive to allowing a free exchange of ideas, as people need to listen and be capable of hearing. (edit: And be united behind the ideal of the betterment of society as a whole - if they 'like things they way they are' then.. ...) But for Communication to be successful people need to Really listen, and then really hear (without injecting their own 'agenda' or prejudices) what that person is actually trying to relay.
(edited for spelling and a bit of clarification)