Anarchy has no place on the political spectrum, because it is the total absence of the political spectrum. Under anarchy, there is no external authority, and therefore no politics for that authority to be defined by.
I disagree with this author, because he falls into the same trap that the conventional political spectrum does: defining the spectrum by the ideologies, rather than defining the spectrum by the actions.
IMO, the truly accurate political spectrum would have total centralized government on the far left, with total decentralized government on the far right. This way, communism defines the left end of the chart, with fascism slightly to its right. Federalism becomes the center, because it maintains strict authority while decentralizing it. On the far right, you have totally decentralized authority, such as autonomous city-states.
Just how I see it.
Actually, some really weird links brought me to anarchist websites. It actually has a formulated system of “rules” and there are left anarchists and right anarchists. I don’t understand most of it though.
“On the far right, you have totally decentralized authority, such as autonomous city-states.”
Well, that puts anarchy right back into your spectrum. The next step beyond autonomous city-states would be entirely autonomous individuals—to wit, anarchy.
However, I like the thinking behind the decentralized vs not as the basis for a spectrum.