By Cake Boy
Cake Boy doesn’t per se propagate for pluralist anarchism. I just see it as the only reasonable anarchist system. If you’re an anarchist, then be a pluralist. As I already said, I’m a thinker, not an activist. My way to add to anarchism is to think about it and write about it. I’m not actually going to make that new world; I’m too lazy for that, and I’m more focused on myself and my well-being. Speculating about politics and trying to redefine anarchism was just a hobby. I differ from Preston, I think he actually really wants to create this pluralism, and is more of an activist.
After reading about it for hundreds of hours, I conclude that pluralist anarchism would be the only logical anarchist force in the world. It’s a system based on material reality, not religious idealism. Political movements need to be grounded; they should be able to interact with the world and deal with its problems and contradictions. They can’t ignore power structures, geopolitical settings, economics, territory, etc.
A country consisting of different social zones, working together to defend borders and creating autonomous zones for people to use/homestead when they want to drop out, could function in the world because it could defend itself. If something can’t protect itself, it can’t exist. There will be no ‘new man’. There will be no ‘pacifist queer future.’ These ideas of sixteen-year-old girls have nothing to do with actual politics and our social realities.
Leftists talk very emotionally about the pluralist project and about Preston. For example, in this text https://antifascistnews.net/2015/10/23/letter-to-keith-preston-no-youre-not-an-anarchist/ .This is strange because, in a way, anarcho-pluralism is multicultural and very ‘rainbow.’ Something leftists would like, wouldn’t they? A world where everyone can ‘be themselves’? Isn’t that what they always talk about?
Anarcho-pluralism isn’t that different from neoliberal modernity in its aesthetics. It wants a world in which all kinds of cultures, subcultures, and lifestyles can live together and work together. Neoliberalism had the same wishes. But pluralism rejects neoliberalism’s centralism and monopoly tendencies.
Leftist/Antifa people say nationalism, conservatism, and capitalism aren’t anarchist. I agree, but they would have another meaning within a pluralist framework. Full-blown anarcho-capitalism would be a monopoly. Anarcho-capitalism, within a pluralist framework, would be a lifestyle. Imposed conservatism is not anarchist. But conservatism, in a pluralist/post-modernist/multicultural framework, would be a lifestyle choice. The meaning of landlordism is different if there are several alternatives (homesteading commons, mutualist systems/zones, Georgist systems/zones). The meaning of communism is different if there are alternatives. The definition of conservatism is different if you don’t impose your conservative worldview on others. An anarcho-pluralist world would be a world where radical religious people could still live, where women could, for example, wear a Niqab (which is also the case now in this country). This wouldn’t be the case in leftist anarchism, because leftist anarchism wants to cleanse the world of every taint of conservatism, and what they call ‘bigotry’.
Anarcho-pluralism has been presented in a very clumsy way, making it easy for antifascists to attack it. It looks far more radical, right-wing, and dangerous than it actually is. This is also the reason why I’m not an activist; people will do things that I strongly disagree with. Anarchism has a massive PR problem. For now, it’s too obscure for me to get actively involved in it.
Antifa might say that anarchy pluralism still isn’t real anarchism! Well, you can call it what you want. It is clear how it looks, how it would function, and what it probably should be. Then you can call it what you wish to; that won’t change anything. Call it federalism, pluralism, anarchism, libertarianism, postmodernism, post-neoliberalism, post libertarianism, or whatever. How important is the word ‘anarchism’ to you? Is it like a religious icon? What is more important, creating a system that functions or being part of a particular group, having a political identity?
There would be positive and negative sides to the pluralist model. The positive side would be that officials can’t abuse people anymore because a correction mechanism is built into the system. People have more agency and individual freedom. People can choose a system/zone that works for them. People can choose the currency they want, and there is no central banking anymore. People can homestead again if the commons are revived, restoring the balance of power.
A negative side would be that there would be no central state that could tackle certain subcultural or religious excesses that most people dislike.
So, in a way, you get rid of the corruption inherent in centralized bureaucracy, which causes a lot of harm, but certain dark sides of tribalism would occur again.
Again, the model has positive and negative sides. People just have to be honest about this. If they are honest about it from the start, then there is no problem.
Some days ago, I heard a speech from the leader of the socialist party in this country. He said: some of my politics will be very positive, but there will also be negative sides. Still, the positive sides outshine the negative sides. This is realistic politics. Present it as it is, not as pure black or pure white, but as a shade of grey that is white enough, at least in your view
(if you want to contact Cake Boy, or make a zine of these texts, contact Preston)
