As to anarchism wanting chaos for the sake of (violent) revolution and re-making of government, absolutely that would be one variant. I cited Ellul, James C Scott, and Wengrow and Graeber as examples of the kind of anarchist strain I'm thinking of (and a "safer" and potentially far more creative, constructive, and productive one) because they're asking more about human communities living away from and outside civilizations as such, basically seeing the benefits of being not so "civilized" (it's a pejorative! -- why do we automatically assume being "civilized" is such a good thing?). Civilizations can be (and these authors do a good job of explaining it) deliberately exploitative of the masses for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful. So anarchy might be less about "flipping the system": having a revolution, setting up shop anew, then doing all and worse that the previous regime did, against which they originally fought). It's about avoiding any system whatsoever.
Interesting point about the far left not being concerned with economics vs race and gender. I mean, today's far left does not seem to be Marxist (except for focusing on groups and "identities" -- racial groups, gender groups, much as Marx labeled and focused on classes, which were economic: proletariat, bourgeoisie). There's a lot of concern for wealth inequality, but that seems to be more a conversation point of the old progressive left. So the old left was/is extremely concerned with economics. My suspicion is that the identity-politics focused left today IS in fact more elites, who are comfortable themselves if not upper class, so it's just not as pressing a personal problem. And they see oppression or injustice less in economic terms than in social terms (i.e. these social identity classes of race and gender or sexual preference, etc.).
I don't think its a fair characterization to say that the far left is not concerned with economics or class. Certainly race and gender are perceived by the far right as the predominant value-mechanism for the far left, but that is reactive and not wholly substantive.
Also it seems like you are drawing the line between anarchy and extreme libertarianism on the basis of a perhaps radical level of freedom - economic and individual? Whereas I see this flirtation with anarchy (from multiple sides - far left and far right) to be an attraction to the idea of chaos that might yield a remaking of society. The vision of this emergent society differs greatly no doubt. But anarchy is not a persistent state, or at least hasn't been in history that I know of. Revolution, empire overthrow, civil wars...these conflicts are a catalyst for new beginnings, but they are not a end goal.
As to anarchism wanting chaos for the sake of (violent) revolution and re-making of government, absolutely that would be one variant. I cited Ellul, James C Scott, and Wengrow and Graeber as examples of the kind of anarchist strain I'm thinking of (and a "safer" and potentially far more creative, constructive, and productive one) because they're asking more about human communities living away from and outside civilizations as such, basically seeing the benefits of being not so "civilized" (it's a pejorative! -- why do we automatically assume being "civilized" is such a good thing?). Civilizations can be (and these authors do a good job of explaining it) deliberately exploitative of the masses for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful. So anarchy might be less about "flipping the system": having a revolution, setting up shop anew, then doing all and worse that the previous regime did, against which they originally fought). It's about avoiding any system whatsoever.
Interesting point about the far left not being concerned with economics vs race and gender. I mean, today's far left does not seem to be Marxist (except for focusing on groups and "identities" -- racial groups, gender groups, much as Marx labeled and focused on classes, which were economic: proletariat, bourgeoisie). There's a lot of concern for wealth inequality, but that seems to be more a conversation point of the old progressive left. So the old left was/is extremely concerned with economics. My suspicion is that the identity-politics focused left today IS in fact more elites, who are comfortable themselves if not upper class, so it's just not as pressing a personal problem. And they see oppression or injustice less in economic terms than in social terms (i.e. these social identity classes of race and gender or sexual preference, etc.).
I don't think its a fair characterization to say that the far left is not concerned with economics or class. Certainly race and gender are perceived by the far right as the predominant value-mechanism for the far left, but that is reactive and not wholly substantive.
Also it seems like you are drawing the line between anarchy and extreme libertarianism on the basis of a perhaps radical level of freedom - economic and individual? Whereas I see this flirtation with anarchy (from multiple sides - far left and far right) to be an attraction to the idea of chaos that might yield a remaking of society. The vision of this emergent society differs greatly no doubt. But anarchy is not a persistent state, or at least hasn't been in history that I know of. Revolution, empire overthrow, civil wars...these conflicts are a catalyst for new beginnings, but they are not a end goal.