Indeed the anarchic nature is in the relations - the structures do not dictate the relations, but the relations dictate the structure. Deleuze speaks of this as rhizomes, and a natural economy functions in part as anarchy, with the only order imposed by the element value and its derivatives and effects. But a natural economy can not function without a policing element, protecting the trade function from the theft function.
A too powerful policing element - even just a self-coherent policing element is guaranteed to become the element of theft. We might look at the possibility of introducing anarchic relations within the justice apparatus, deriving their coherence from the elements they defend rather than from a universal principle of a "monopoly of violence by the state" - of which we are beginning to see the ultimate consequences, seeing them for incompatible with the very principle of politics itself.
Badiou says somewhere that politics is dead, and this is what he means - politics equals violent struggle or the possibility of it - "politics will have a different meaning" means "politics will be entirely esoteric" (esoteric as literal: behind the veil).
But this can't happen. I mean literally it can't, as there is no ontological support for such a system. Power must ultimately be valued in the terms dictated by its subject. If the subject is not employed by the system as a coercive element, if it is entirely passive, it will become an anarchic element, a rogue, a spin-off, and if too much of that is going on the state collapses.