Maybe it's just been a long day, but I don't get your point here.
IIUC (I don't live in California, but I do live in the US), California has a thriving (5th largest in the world, IIRC, if they were separate from the US) economy based on capitalism and free (as in at least paying lip service to fairness) markets.
And therein lies my confusion. Are you saying that "This seems inevitable for a global political movement with a mission of discrediting government by kneecapping all its efforts."[0] California is not trying to discredit government and failing to do so?
Also, are there really only two options? Those being government control of everything or anarcho-capitalism[1]? Not setting up a straw man here (or at least not trying to do so), I just don't understand what you're trying to say, and it's an interesting topic I wouldn't mind discussing.
I hope you see why I'm confused by your statement. If you'd elucidate, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33157027 (the comment to which you replied)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Edit: Fixed grammatical error.