Unfortunately, when there are so many interpretations of the term "Anarchy"
Isn't that true of any generic socio-political term?
'Socialism' can mean anything from Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats.
To an extent. Most human language words are ambiguous.
"Socialism" is loosely defined as "social ownership and democratic control of the
means of production."
That's a big thing to have in common, and makes it a useful word.
Anarchism is hard to pin down like that, it doesn't have that "necessary and sufficient" component defining it. Not to say it can't be misused, like someone calling their party "Capitososialist." But "Socialism" works fine in "Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats."
See what I mean?
The point is simply that if you choose to use imprecise terminology, you should not be surprised if your meaning is ambiguously interpreted. It's not a unique quality of 'anarchy'.
It's a question of degree. The problem with "Anarchy" is it has become a meaningless term (outside of its colloquial usage, as in "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy").
When you say "I'm an Anarchist," I don't know what you're trying to say. Think of it like X in the formula Y=Z+X-X. I can eliminate it, and the formula stays the same. It add nothing.
It's the same with "Anarchist."
After calling yourself an Anarchist, you still have to go through
exactly the same list of explanations if the word "Anarchy" didn't exist.
See what I'm trying to say?
Yeah, that's true enough.
So many socio-political terms have become genericized to the point of meaninglessness. In America, it's amazing how almost any political term you use will end up being interpreted by your listener as either 'Democrat' or 'Republican', i.e. left-wing = liberal = Democrat, right-wing = conservative = Republican.
Kind of sad really, because all of those words have distinct, useful meanings of their own.
No use in complaining about it though - all you can do is try to take that into account, and speak (or write) more precisely.
There's no way around the ultimate semiotic dilemma, though, that when I present a symbol to you to convey meaning, the meaning you get will come from you, not from me.