By Cake Boy

I discovered anarchism when I was twenty. I started to read the works of the major names in anarchism.

I became interested in anarchism because I disliked both communism and fascism. And I had/have problems with the current neoliberal order. Anarchism said it was about individual freedom, which is important to me. So, I thought, maybe anarchism has some answers to my questions, so let’s get into it.

I joined an anarchist party.

But I became disillusioned with this party very soon. For several reasons. I name them now:

First, there was a feeling of fear and tension in this anarchist milieu. It’s hard to explain, but it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. The atmosphere was one of permanent anger and negative energy.

Also, it felt as if this anarchist movement never came out of the sort of adolescent rebellion—as if it was a thing for 17-year-old boys. They call anarchists ‘anarkiddies’ for a reason. It never came out of high school; it was awkward.

The third thing I didn’t like was the lack of free speech and philosophical debate in the scene. There was not really space for debate or different visions.

There are certain dogmas, and every good anarchist has to follow them.

But who can decide what the dogma is? Often, this was a super-woke college student who was so-called the ‘best anarchist’ in the movement. In theory, the movement was ‘decentralized,’ but this was nonsense. It was just a top-down cult.

The milieu is wholly ingrained with neoliberal progressivism, the American corporate PC culture, which we associate with, for example, the Democratic Party. And it was something we didn’t use to have here, in Europe. This neoliberal progressivism, by the way, is a product of the state, of the status quo. These kids learn these things within the neoliberal institutions, bringing them into anarchism.

There was never a debate possible about these woke/PC issues. For example, one of the anarchists was a little bit skeptical about some of the transgender policies, etc. And then they all canceled him, kicked him out, even threatened him.

I was like, why is there no free speech in this space? Why can’t we even talk face-to-face about some issues? Are you people about freedom? But not the freedom to at least talk about a specific compilated political topic? So, you want no state but also no free speech? Then who will restrict free speech? Something that sort of functions like a state? An anarchist police force?

It was obvious that some well-known anarchist queer, whatever people, were cult leaders. Because they were the ones everyone listened to. They knew the right words and the right woke politics they learned from their silly studies .

I thought, if this is anarchism, then anarchism is full of idiots. Then, it’s something that can waste your life and your potential.

I read some Malatesta, and in this book, he talks about how the masses in Italy back in the 19th century were very enthusiastic about anarchism. This is very strange to read because, at this time, 99 percent of all the working people in this country hate anarchists. They hate everything about them. The working people here vote for nationalist parties, libertarian parties, or socialist parties. And they laugh about anarchist kids.

Another thing I noticed was that this anarchist cult was sort of half within the domain of ultra-leftism, communism, and Trotskyism. They talked about communism not as a statist ideology but as ‘fellow leftist brothers. So, the current anarchists are closeted communists, often. They often also came out of Marxist spaces, cults, etc. This then corresponds with their anti-free speech ideas because with a Marxist bureaucracy, you can indeed ban free speech.

So, there is a problem with political terminology in general. I can call myself ‘an anarchist,’ but hundreds of others can claim the same name. And mean something different with it. I can call myself an anarchist, and then I have to explain that I’m not into PC culture, that I’m not a Rothbardian/Hoppean, and that I don’t beat up Trump supporters, and that I’m not Antifa, and that I’m not in a crust punk band, and that I’m not against money per se, etc.

What does such a political word mean? When can it mean so much? And when most people don’t understand anything about it.  What is the meaning of a word when the receiving party doesn’t know what you’re saying and when the meaning of the word changes all the time?

In the end, I’m just me. I’m not a political party or dogma. There are ideas I think are plausible and realistic and ideas that aren’t. But I’m not an official member of something bigger than me.

If someone forces me to call myself an anarchist. A sort of anarchist. If someone says you must be an anarchist, what kind of anarchist are you? Then, I’m an individualist anarchist. Stiner’s work was the most impressive to me. I think this clashes with the more Marxist, collectivist anarchists out there, who want you to make a sacrifice. Who want you to be part of a ‘historical development’. Who wants you to change yourself in the name of the ‘new world.’

It’s a shame that modern anarchism is silly because there are also genius writers within the anarchist milieu. Writers like Preston, Chomsky, Carson. Even when you’re not an anarchist, their work is excellent.

However, anarchism as a movement, at least in Europe, is not serious. Maybe it has more meaning in other parts of the world. I think communism/Leninism has more political power these days.