The fantasy-story of right-wing anarchy is creating misinformation, someone thinks that something like “anarcho-capitalism” is real philosophy, instead of the linguistic distortion of fascist-capitalism that it is.
Should people even specify that they are left-wing anarchists now? Do we really want to put a stop to this propagandistic joke? Anarchy will always be the extreme left into the political pendulum.
And I will tell you more: anarchism is by its nature also pacifism, as it aims to prevent any form of uncontrolled power on others. This is to silence even centrists: another fake group, people who think that it’s not “extremist” in its own abstinence, in delegating violence.
How exactly do you expect to achieve and maintain anarchy without violence? Do you expect the bourgeoisie will just go “Oh shit you’re right!” and give up their power willingly?
Democracy theoretically permits voting for someone who will reduce government power. Media telling you who you are allowed to vote for is an obstacle.
Proletarian democracy, sometimes. Try to vote out a bourgeoisie democracy though?
Non violent evolution through class consciousness. Parallel counter economic systems that erode the states power. Strong co-operative networks like Proudhon envisioned.
Peace can only come from peace, not violence.
Basically what the tech fascists are trying to do without the centralisation, oligarchy and white supremacy.
https://www.vcinfodocs.com/what-is-the-network-state
I have a hard time believing it can be non-violent. Parallel power structures will be met by violence as soon as they become a threat to the establishment. It can’t be built up to the capacity to rival the state’s power in secret, it’ll be identified and eradicated prior to reaching that point.
Defensive violence seems unavoidable, but I see your point about not needing to initiate the violent overthrow of the state.
States employ a very wide range of tools to neutralize movements they perceive as a threat.
How do you stop the state from using its power to stop these parallel systems from taking away its power?
True decentralisation is unstoppable. No centralised point of attack.
You don’t need centralization to present points of attack. Any exchange of goods or person involved is a potential attack surface.
Look at any Food Not Bombs deals with. Or if you want to go further back, look at how the Black Panthers were neutralized.
When frameworks and tooling is sufficiently robust, one node being attacked doesn’t impact the whole network.
Black Panthers weren’t decentralised, not in any comparable way anyway. Food Not Bombs has attack vectors but they would be one node, not the whole network.
I am not understanding how any org can do anything without presenting something the state can use violence against, can you give an example?
Well most things will have an attack vector if you reality think about it but the trick is to have a plethora of distributed and dynamic solutions that gradually chip away at the need for a state without anyone even thinking to attack until it’s too late.
One could be a seamless intuitive app that enables a local currency, facilitating the velocity of trade, goods, and services outwith the existing monetary system, allowing us to create sustainable local economies.