This is a long time in the making - and these ideas all center around certain things that many groups have been working towards.
Self sustainability, self sufficiency, local community orientation, active engagement in maintaining wellbeing of community, taking care of each other while allowing for freedoms so long as they do not impinge on the freedoms of others, etc. You find lots of this kind of thinking as expressed in the general political ideals of leftist feminism.
The extension of trustless decentralized systems as a solution to achieve the aim of removing hierarchy / patriarchy from systems is a more novel approach that we could only reach once the technology evolved to allow it, i.e. it was not possible in pre-IT times, thus the closest facsimile of it historically on the political landscape was the idealized democratic socialism - not that any country could successfully implement it, because it naturally encompasses the ideas of hierarchy and patriarchy be default.
In short, it is the counterculture movement.
Leary talked about similar ideas - turn on (activate your higher mental functions, or in the case of a large percentage of people, at least activate some mental function), tune in (become harmonized with some aspect of the natural world around you), drop out (leave the mainstream culture and its concepts behind, detach from an existence that leaves you to operate as an automaton reacting to the mainstream without a choice).
Lots of the counterculture movement overlaps with the anarchist movement, and of course you know the crypto-anarchist movement is essentially what birthed the decentralized digital trust technologies. You end up running into issues though when the method to achieve the aims of the counterculture is a technology in itself, because technology is a tool, and, generally speaking, that capitalist-hierarchical-patriarchal system which we can call capitalism for lack of a better term itself uses any and all technologies to suppress opposition. Thus we see things such as the way cryptocurrency has been commoditized fits neatly into the existing paradigms of capitalism, and it becomes another tool to be wielded to continue exerting control.
As an example of this, you can look at all the cases where it has been seized as parts of law enforcement initiatives, or how it is forced to be involved in taxation in cases of currency exchanges. Most of the largest holders of cryptocurrency are also only the largest holders by exploiting fundamental processes within the capitalistic systems, that of the markets allowing collateral, i.e. selling shares to buy BTC(i.e. how Microstrategy became the worlds largest BTC holder, and you can look at the top 10 biggest holders and they have all used similar tactics). In fact, in the top 100 biggest holders, you will only see financial corporations. Unsurprisingly, you also find that right around 50% of those top 100 companies are American publicly traded companies (i.e. have access to issuing new shares in order to buy BTC). Still, it's likely a better financial system than FIAT (and I think you know my general support of BTC, as it has also played a massive role in my life), but I don't think it's "the answer" to the problems we face.
The answer, as far as I can tell, revolves around the death of the hierarchical / patriarchal system in totality. It is the fall of Rome concept, but not as applied to a single technology nor a single country, but as applied to the idea of Human History and crucially to human consciousness. In that regard, I am talking about the death of the ego-self as the central decision making entity of the individual. On a collective level, you can think of this as the Individuated Collective Consciousness, and this seems to, at first glance, hint at something like a collective AI, but again I refer back to the idea that any and all technologies can and will be used by the hegemonic force to crush opposition, so at least from my vantage point, that collectivization via AI is not a solution, but a deepening of the problem.
Canadian PM Mark Carney made an interesting broad statement today, which was "Nostalgia isn't a strategy - we have to change", and this also reminds me of McKenna's "nostalgia for the paleolithic" as an expression of this seeking for a way out of the nightmare of history. I don't think we can go back - so the way out is through. Of course there are escapes - one can think of the ideas of temporary autonomous zones, and even extend that to how Gibson saw the start of the technological counterculture revolution start with the implementation of a TAZ becoming a permanent foothold from which it seeded itself, but Gibson saw a future that did not usher in the death of the prevailing paradigm, but allowed it to consume the new technology.
In the words of Gibson, "Capitalism has the ability to subsume all critiques into itself. Even those who would critique capital end up reinforcing it instead". It does not here mater what the prevailing system in power is, it is the idea that any critique of that system that is in power is forced to critique it using the language of that system. The entrenched power structures necessarily force the use of the language of that power structure to critique it - and therein lays the problem - it is always a critique from the inside.
In extension to this above idea of the critique, you end up with Orwell's newspeak, that is, the totalitarian restriction of language (and therefore though), because your capacity to enact change is limited due to the critique of the system being necessarily made in the allowable language of the system.
Enter taboo.
It is only through unrestricted taboo that actual change can ever occur. By unrestricted taboo I mean to differentiate between that and restricted taboo. Restricted taboo is that which is allowed under conditions, as theses conditions means the ability of the taboo to actually effect change has been neutered. Restricted taboos are understood not to produce social destabilization, and thus are safe, and can even be exploited for economic benefit and continuing the hegemony.
Unrestricted taboo can produce total change, if they spread socially. Think of widescale general strike, by the workers of the world. That is an example of unrestricted taboo that can effect change. Widescale refusal to pay or participate in any and all taxation is another example of unrestricted taboo. There are many more, but I just mention these two.
In order for any act of Unrestricted Taboo to spread, the groundwork for its communicability has to exist - and more and more this has become a function of our IT age - the interconnectedness via our phones / computers. Unsurprisingly, there are very few ways to truly communicate safely, if one wanted to start laying the groundwork, except through using certain encryption protocols, and these are regularly attacked by the hegemony as well. All the cryptography in the world does not matter much either if one is using either Intel or AMD chips - both these packages contain ME (management engines) that are subsystems with network capability that by default bypass firewalls and operate outside of the main operating system. The power that be are of course very aware of these things, which is why, for example, such a big deal was made when Huewei was making modems with internal backdoors - because they certainly did not want to use such network equipment for fear of having all their data viewable by the CCP, yet the stance on the ME backdoors in Intel and AMD chips is met with a strong silence which is a refusal to either admit or deny the knowledge of their existence.
This above paragraph is there to highlight an information / technological example of Gibson's quote of the subsuming capacity of capital and how it related to Newspeak, and to draw a correlation between the role of technology as communication, and the role of language as not only communication, but the foundations for how we think about the world.
The way I see it, the paradigm that is shifted to that will be the death of the current hegemony can not be technological, nor can it be hierarchical, nor can it be a patriarchy in any sense - and by this I do not mean "women" need to rule the world - that is also a hierarchy and it's the same thing in the end.
Unsurprising though that once can rarely predict the circumstances of the new system, because that system is encoded by language that is inaccessible. The language to describe the system is only born when the system itself is born - and here by language I group in the ideas of the ability of that system to communicate with itself, and also the understanding of what that system is, i.e. the total consciousness.
One may understand that before any great revolution, the consciousness of the people was already predisposed towards a change, and in most cases revolutions ended up worse for the citizens (at least initially), because the hegemonic systems are hydra. It is always in the capacity to organize wherein the power lies, and generally speaking, the capacity to organize for the public is more fragmented than, for example, the capacity to organize for a military.
I think that capitalism represent the last possible political hegemony, and the paradigm change cannot be just representative of a change in political or technological system, but must represent a change in consciousness itself, and by that I mean not just the collective consciousness of a nation, but also the individual consciousness of a single person.
There are lots of example of already these types of changes, for example the "laying flat" movement in China, decreasing attendance to Churches in the west, general refusal for people to return to the office (remote work), people dropping out of the self optimization hustle (ie. career ladders etc), growing revulsion of influencer culture, and so on. The hegemony does not go out with a bang, it is reduced and dies with a whimper.
Beware those that seek to provide solutions to the problem. Any solution is a method of control - i.e. it is continuing of hegemony. The real solutions are not provided, i.e. they are not a form of participation, they are an expression of nonparticipation in the current system.
This makes it easy to see what one can do if they wish to move forwards towards the next paradigm, or alternately what one can do if they wish to continue support the current paradigm.
The movement has no manifesto. It has no leaders. It has no timeline. It has no theory on how to operate. From the outside it looks like the meek - the downtrodden, those who have given up all hope. It looks like everything the current hegemony tells you to despise, to hate, to avoid. It is the expressions of that deep fear - that projection of that one small thing that can destroy the hydra.
