"Oh no they're feeding people we don't like on land they don't pay our protection racket for, and they self-organized to do it without using coercive hierarchies! Quick, get 'em!"
"Oh no they're feeding people we don't like on land they don't pay our protection racket for, and they self-organized to do it without using coercive hierarchies! Quick, get 'em!"
Anarchism is not considered the most dangerous by the state at the moment, if you look at funding and internal organization of the relevant state departments. Perhaps by insane conservatives, libertarians, and people who’s brains are too poisoned by the haze of suburbia. The state’s intelligence and anti-terrorism focus is more on Islamists and the far-right terrorism, if you look at funding, because they rational ones in charge are aware that the left doesn’t really do terrorism in the west any more.
They ofc jail, murder and infiltrate groups of leftists, but the brass are actually aware that we are not the main violent threat at the moment.
In terms of long term politics liberals and conservatives often cannot distinguish communists or anarchists within their broad ‘socialism’ spectrum. However, the state does not think we have much of a chance I reckon, and they think this least about anarchists. In a sense they are right, because anarchism does not sound realistic or sensible to your average working class individual.
Not just this, but they also had a ~50 year (70 if you count the first red scare) head start to perfect methods to keep any kind of mass leftist movement relatively powerless and disorganized, not to mention unmotivated to engage in direct action.
With islamism and religious extremism it's a different story, because they had to learn how to counter this new flavor of terrorism, and it doesn't help that they had propped it up before, so they were wise to the usual tricks.