I hard disagree. A commitment to nonviolence permits organised fascists to take control. Why is violence not a solution? If somebody is assaulting you then violence is an acceptable response. If somebody is abusing a child this is a form of violence and thus can be met with a violent response. Violence can discourage violence hence the existence of the police and so-called justice systems. I understand how these systems can create violence but my point is that violence doesn’t -only beget violence. It’s a brutal tool to enforce conformity but a tool nonetheless, and since I see imprisonment as more inhumane then the only other alternative in what you termed utopia would be, at least in my reasoning, exile to paedo island after receiving a full face tattoo. That’s not even getting into the issues the utopia would have with organised, militaristic fascist groups popping up left and right. I’m sure this must have been the norm in pre-civilisation and I’m not naive enough to believe that the existence of an anarchistic world would remain stable as everything comes to pass, but how would those within this society ensure its survival for the longest time possible? Within your vision of stateless utopia, where would the communists and the capitalists go, and how would they operate with the societies outside of their enclaves? How would those outside the enclaves defend themselves from the influence of these societies to avoid the reinstatement of the current status quo, or one far worse for the average person? There are always unintened consequences to every action. I don’t have the answers to these questions and it seems nobody else does either, but we aren’t ever going to get everyone on the planet to agree to orient themselves toward the same goals because the mere act of geographical separation creates speciation within ideologies. Everything is subject to the law of evolution via natural selection, including ideas and ideologies. Without brainwashing and indoctrinating children into anarchist ideology I don’t see how it can be achieved, and that is completely antithetical to my beliefs and is the major reason I identify as an anarchist.
So the working class are the only ones who have a legitimate claim to violence? Why? Are you making the claim that it is acceptable for Group A to use violence to terrorise Group B into ideological submission? If not, what claim are you making? If so, why is that any different to the legitimate use of violence by the state? Is it simply a numbers game? If so, in a majority fascist country would the fascists not have the same claim to the monopoly on violence?
While I’m asking, do you believe that money is the only form of profit, or could welfare and social capital also be considered profit? If so everyone in the west is profiting off the exploitation of developing nations, including our worst off as they have access to support and infrastructure, however ineffective, than the exploited foreign workers upon whom the existence of our society is predicated. Are you donating all of your money to charitable causes to the point where you live as ascetic a life as them?