in episode 4 of Liberty & Logos, Amory says "the first issue that [he has] when it comes to ideologies that are negatively constructed is wondering why they're not positively constructed."
we construct a negative ideology (or anti-ideology, if we take ourselves a little bit seriously) because we find it more useful than the alternative. to us, anarchism is something different than the endless ideological positions for "how the world should be." to us, anarchism is a way of describing the world in the process of rejecting it, not because of a counterfactual ethics but because it stands in the way of our personal desire.
in Decentralist Anarchy versus World Domination Anarchism, Bellamy writes that "an anarchic world will not be mono-cultural, but instead massively polycultural, with differential cultures developing out of organic, voluntary association in symbiotic relations with their differential landbases and/or differential nomadic patterns."
we agree (with this quote at least, not necessarily with anything else in the post). however, we find both his process and conclusions about anarchism disingenuous. between his musings in Decentralist Anarchy and L&L, it seems that Bellamy has imagined a future in which anarchists have "won" (the state is fallen, capital is gone, anarchists are constructing their world and deciding what to do with its dissidents) and worked backwards from there.
in this hypothetical world, anarchists must deal with groups such as white supremacists and religious fundamentalists either without a power imbalance, or with an imbalance in favor of anarchists. in our present reality, many on the far right collaborate with and are protected by the forces of the state, and generally want to see state and/or capital strengthened and utilized towards their enemies. they reject those who would see it all torn down. regardless of their internal disagreements on methods, there is no possibility for collaboration with any who prefer the existing systems of power to their absence. Bellamy's positioning of such groups as "marginals" is laughable - white supremacy, Christianity (and its bastard child rationalism), and traditionalism remain hegemonic, though they now share that ground with their cultural descendants.
in our opinion, Bellamy's anarchism is more likely to enable the sort of world society project he denounces. we doubt the possibility of fascism and anarchism peacefully co-existing. the drive for total control makes fascism what it is, and a vehement (more pathos than logos, perhaps) anti-fascism is core to anarchism. that anti-fascism is more than "antifa"; it is a hatred of any kind of domination.
at this point, there is a critical distinction that Bellamy seems to miss. we distinguish between a desire to destroy systems of control and a desire to institute any kind of society. as anarchists, we do not want to transform the world culture or use it for new purposes, but to annihilate it. if we attack a fascist, we are in no way proposing a new sort of police to identify and attack fascists everywhere.
we believe that not only must our means correspond to our ends, they must be one and the same. we therefore have no positive vision for the world nor any society within it. our anarchism demands a complete destruction both of ideologies like ethnonationalism and, eventually, any positive ideologies within anarchism itself. there is no room for either in a world that is liberated from global civilization. we should not be asking "but what will we do if we win?" but instead "how can we meet our desires today? what can we do with them?". whatever people make or do with liberation, it won't be anarchist. it won't be anything we can engineer from within leviathan.