Paths to Freedom or Roads to Control?

Bellamy Fitzpatrick's Critique of World Domination Anarchism, Decentralist Anarchy, and Worldwide Wokeness

Bellamy Fitzpatrick is an American anarchist thinker and writer known for his critiques of modern anarchist and leftist movements. Formerly the co-host of the podcast The Brilliant, Fitzpatrick has established himself as a provocative voice in discussions about anarchism, ecology, and radical politics. In January 2020, he authored the essay “Decentralist Anarchy versus World Domination Anarchism” to address growing ideological divides within anarchist circles. His purpose was to critique certain strands of anarchism, which he labels World Domination Anarchism (WDA), as well as the influence of Worldwide Wokeness, a form of progressive moral enforcement. Fitzpatrick contrasts these with Decentralist Anarchy, advocating for a model that emphasizes localized autonomy and voluntary association over centralized, global structures. Through this essay, Fitzpatrick aims to challenge anarchists to consider how they envision achieving societal transformation while avoiding authoritarian pitfalls.
Expanding on the ideas presented in Bellamy Fitzpatrick’s essay "Decentralist Anarchy versus World Domination Anarchism" requires delving deeply into the philosophical tensions that he identifies between differing strands of anarchist thought and the related influences of progressive ideals. Fitzpatrick explores the ideological divergences between World Domination Anarchism (WDA) and Decentralist Anarchy, while critiquing what he calls Worldwide Wokeness as a powerful and often authoritarian force within modern leftist and anarchist movements. These concepts each offer contrasting visions of an ideal society, leading to profound questions regarding governance, community autonomy, cultural homogeneity, and the role of ideological enforcement. While each vision proposes a path toward transformation, Fitzpatrick raises concerns about how these approaches may contradict or even undermine core anarchist values of freedom, autonomy, and voluntary association.

This essay explores the problems Fitzpatrick identifies within each approach, the tensions arising from their differing ideological frameworks, and how their coexistence might be theoretically feasible. By analyzing how each concept could sequentially manifest in a social evolution process, this examination considers the potential interactions and influences each approach might have on the others. Furthermore, we will discuss six possible sequences in which these concepts could be realized, considering how each order might uniquely shape society’s structure, values, and approach to autonomy.

Anarchism Flow Chart

Problems Identified by the Author

Fitzpatrick’s primary criticisms of World Domination Anarchism (WDA), Decentralist Anarchy, and Worldwide Wokeness are rooted in the perceived limitations, contradictions, and risks each approach poses when pushed to its extremes. By analyzing each concept individually, we can better understand Fitzpatrick's concerns about how they might negatively impact the overall vision of a truly anarchic society.

1. Totalitarian Tendencies in World Domination Anarchism
   Fitzpatrick critiques WDA for its implicit reliance on a centralized authority or bureaucratic system to maintain a cohesive, global anarchist society. He argues that achieving an entirely globalized anarchist society would necessitate the creation of a state-like enforcement system to uphold ideological uniformity and suppress dissent. This notion is fundamentally paradoxical, as the enforcement of any single ideology on a global scale contradicts the anarchist principle of voluntary association. Fitzpatrick suggests that while WDA might be motivated by good intentions, such as the desire to prevent local tyrannies or oppressive practices within smaller communities, it ultimately risks becoming a form of authoritarianism masked as anarchism.

2. Homogenization of Culture and the Problem of Universality
   A central issue with WDA, as Fitzpatrick presents it, is its implication of cultural homogeneity. By envisioning a world unified under one anarchist framework, WDA threatens to erase cultural, social, and economic diversity. Fitzpatrick questions how such a monolithic culture could be sustained without suppressing distinct identities and traditions. This critique extends to the practical question of how to choose which cultural norms or ethical frameworks should dominate. The risk here is that WDA could enforce a “one-size-fits-all” model that stifles individuality and autonomy—values that are central to anarchist philosophy.

3. Potential for “Tiny Tyrannies” in Decentralist Anarchy
   Decentralist Anarchy, by contrast, promotes a model of radical decentralization, encouraging the formation of diverse micro-communities each governing themselves independently. While this approach offers a vision of localized autonomy and cultural pluralism, Fitzpatrick notes a significant downside: the possibility of “tiny tyrannies.” In a radically decentralized world, communities might establish authoritarian norms, creating oppressive micro-societies without any external accountability. Fitzpatrick highlights the potential for these decentralized entities to become tyrannical, reproducing the very power structures anarchism aims to dismantle.

4. Authoritarian Rhetoric and Motivations Behind Worldwide Wokeness
   Fitzpatrick's critique of Worldwide Wokeness focuses on its tendency toward ideological rigidity and moral authoritarianism. He argues that Worldwide Wokeness often prioritizes ideological purity over tolerance and open discourse, leading to a culture of social ostracization and, in extreme cases, support for violent retribution against ideological dissenters. This authoritarian impulse conflicts with anarchism’s ethos of voluntary association and freedom of thought. Fitzpatrick’s concern is that Worldwide Wokeness, as an influential force within anarchist and progressive circles, can undermine the movement’s commitment to diversity of thought and mutual respect.

Tensions Between the Concepts

The three concepts—World Domination Anarchism, Decentralist Anarchy, and Worldwide Wokeness—represent competing frameworks for achieving a transformative, egalitarian society. Their core tensions revolve around the balance between centralization and decentralization, cultural homogeneity versus diversity, and the means by which societal values are enforced.

1. Centralization vs. Decentralization
   A fundamental tension exists between WDA's globalist vision and Decentralist Anarchy's local autonomy. While WDA seeks to create a unified, anarchist global society, Decentralist Anarchy advocates for countless autonomous communities, each with the freedom to establish their own cultural, social, and political norms. The tension here is between maintaining a cohesive anarchist framework on a global scale and respecting the autonomy of local communities. WDA risks reintroducing hierarchical structures, while Decentralist Anarchy risks allowing localized oppression.

2. Cultural Homogeneity vs. Cultural Diversity
   WDA implies a degree of cultural uniformity, envisioning a society governed by shared anarchist principles. Decentralist Anarchy, however, champions cultural pluralism, accepting that communities will develop diverse traditions, norms, and practices. Worldwide Wokeness aligns more closely with WDA in its drive for ideological conformity, seeking to establish a common ethical standard across society. This creates a tension between the desire for universal values and the anarchist commitment to respecting diverse ways of life.

3. Means of Enforcement and Moral Authority
   Both WDA and Worldwide Wokeness imply mechanisms of enforcement to ensure adherence to their respective ideals. WDA would require a structured system to enforce a global anarchist society, while Worldwide Wokeness often enforces ideological purity through social pressure and moral condemnation. Decentralist Anarchy, by contrast, rejects these forms of enforcement, arguing that communities should be free to develop their own norms without external imposition. This tension highlights a conflict between ideological purity and anarchism’s principle of voluntary association.

Theoretical Co-existence of These Concepts

For World Domination Anarchism, Decentralist Anarchy, and Worldwide Wokeness to co-exist in a practical framework, each would need to recognize and respect the core principles of the other. Such a model of co-existence might incorporate the following elements:

1. Respect for Local Autonomy with Universal Ethical Guidelines
   To reconcile WDA with Decentralist Anarchy, a system could be structured that respects community autonomy while upholding certain universal ethical principles. These principles would serve as a baseline to prevent severe oppression or exploitation within decentralized communities, without enforcing a comprehensive ideological uniformity. Such a framework would enable the benefits of local self-determination while preventing the formation of oppressive micro-societies.

2. Mutual Non-Interference Pacts
   Communities could establish agreements to respect one another’s autonomy, thereby allowing WDA proponents and Decentralist Anarchists to coexist. These non-interference pacts would create a structure in which communities pursue their ideological paths without imposing their values on others. This would provide a basis for diverse communities to coexist peacefully, aligning with the anarchist value of voluntary association.

3. Influence of Worldwide Wokeness Without Coercion
   Worldwide Wokeness could serve as an influential force promoting social justice and inclusion, but without coercive mechanisms. Instead of imposing values, it would act as a guiding influence that communities could choose to adopt in ways that align with their unique contexts. This approach would allow Worldwide Wokeness to inspire progressive values across different communities, fostering inclusivity without compromising autonomy.

Six Possible Manifestations in Social Evolution

Analyzing the order in which World Domination Anarchism, Decentralist Anarchy, and Worldwide Wokeness could manifest provides insights into how each concept might uniquely shape societal development. Here are the six permutations and their potential impact on social evolution:

1. World Domination Anarchism → Decentralist Anarchy → Worldwide Wokeness

   • Implications: This sequence suggests an initial phase of global anarchist organization, establishing a unified framework. Once established, decentralization would then allow communities to diverge and develop independently. Worldwide Wokeness would follow as a guiding influence, encouraging ethical values without direct enforcement. This order might provide a structured yet flexible approach, where autonomy is gradually prioritized as society stabilizes.

2. World Domination Anarchism → Worldwide Wokeness → Decentralist Anarchy

   • Implications: A unified global anarchist society adopts progressive principles early on, shaping cultural norms through Worldwide Wokeness. Once ethical standards are established, communities move toward decentralization, allowing diverse cultural expressions. This approach fosters unity at the outset, using Worldwide Wokeness to set a moral foundation before devolving power to local levels.

3. Decentralist Anarchy → World Domination Anarchism → Worldwide Wokeness

   • Implications: Decentralist Anarchy is prioritized initially, creating a foundation of autonomous communities. A unified global structure is introduced later, bringing these communities together under an anarchist framework. Worldwide Wokeness then emerges as an ethical influence, promoting inclusivity and social justice within the larger structure. This sequence respects local autonomy from the beginning, moving toward unity as communities grow more interconnected.

4. Decentralist Anarchy → Worldwide Wokeness → World Domination Anarchism

   • Implications: This order begins with decentralized communities that later adopt progressive values through Worldwide Wokeness, fostering a shared ethical base without coercion. A global framework follows, bringing communities together under a unified structure. This sequence balances initial autonomy with progressive values, uniting communities without sacrificing cultural diversity.

5. Worldwide Wokeness → World Domination Anarchism → Decentralist Anarchy

   • Implications: Worldwide Wokeness initiates societal transformation by establishing a baseline of social justice values, followed by a global anarchist framework. Decentralization is then reintroduced, allowing communities to govern themselves under shared ethical principles. This order ensures that progressive values are central to societal development, embedding inclusivity within both centralized and decentralized systems.

6. Worldwide Wokeness → Decentralist Anarchy → World Domination Anarchism

   • Implications: Worldwide Wokeness sets a foundation of progressive ideals, which influence the formation of autonomous communities. A global structure is later established to connect these communities, creating a unified anarchist society. This sequence emphasizes inclusivity from the outset, blending local autonomy with the eventual benefits of global organization.

The interactions and tensions among World Domination Anarchism, Decentralist Anarchy, and Worldwide Wokeness reflect diverse ideological approaches to building an equitable, anarchist society. Each sequence of implementation offers a different vision of societal evolution, balancing centralization, autonomy, and progressive values in distinct ways. The possibility of coexistence among these concepts suggests that a society could potentially harmonize local autonomy with shared ethical standards, fostering a resilient, inclusive, and decentralized anarchist order. By respecting the strengths and limitations of each approach, Fitzpatrick’s analysis invites further reflection on how these ideological frameworks can contribute to a transformative, egalitarian society rooted in freedom, diversity, and mutual respect.