By Cake Boy

A big reason why I can’t take authoritarian systems such as communism and fascism seriously has to do with art.

I’m a big fan of absurd comedians like Tim and Eric, Eric Andrew, and Sam Hyde. The clowns of this time

These artists can only do their work in a more or less classical liberal system or in a libertarian/anarchist/pluralist system. Systems in which there is freedom of speech and the freedom to make art—all kinds of art, from abstract paintings to metal songs, hip-hop breakdancing, ballet, or standup comedy.

If I didn’t support a classical liberal or anarchist/libertarian system, then I would betray the artists I admire.

For example, in a system ruled by Antifa/woke, a lot of artists would get thrown into jail for being ‘transphobic’ or ‘toxic masculine’ or ‘fat phobic.’

I follow the communists on YouTube and thinkers like Haz-Aldin. Their analyses are strong, they are intelligent, and their movement is capable. But in their system, the artists I like would get thrown into a gulag/labor camp, for being ‘bourgeoise’. That’s why I can’t be a communist. I stand behind the freedom of art and the freedom of speech.

The pluralist anarchist theory includes freedom of speech and artistic freedom. This is why it emerged from the libertarian anarchist branch, not the leftist anarchist branch. Leftist anarchism originated in Marxism, while libertarian anarchism originated in classical liberalism.

The pluralist system consists of different social/economic zones. There is free movement between these zones. A zone can’t claim an individual because there is the freedom to migrate to other zones. A zone can set rules, but it can’t jail people within its borders because then it’s not an autonomous zone within a free federation but a fascist state attacking the body from within. The idea is that people come before political structures. People make structures, not the other way around. Most people would immediately leave if a social zone banned free speech/art. If a zone would say: Eric Andrew can’t have his weird comic show here because he is a white cis man, then the people would leave the zone/federation for another. If a zone banned the discussion forums on the net, the people would move to another political body. In this way, we have a correction mechanism, a market. Now, this isn’t the case. Suppose the neoliberal centralized bureaucracy becomes woke/authoritarian. In that case, the whole country has to follow its new rules, and you have to leave the country if you dislike it too much (which many people in my country are doing now).

Most people in this country vote for neoliberal or social democratic parties. They are also generally in favor of freedom of speech and artistic freedom. Western culture is still largely classical liberal, often combined with some Christian values. So, a pluralist system would be based on that foundation. It would consist of different classical liberal arrangements, like social democracy, liberalism, and Georgism.

I know, all of this is very futuristic political speculation. But that’s not strange because we try to formulate a new political theory. I try to be very secure, when I talk about politics and philosophy, I don’t want to make unrealistic statement. We talk about something that doesn’t exist yet. But how do we create new orders if we never speculate about it? We would still have lived in the Middle Ages if we had never fantasized about a future. We know neoliberalism is in crisis, so it’s the right time to think about something else. I try to think about a new order while keeping the parts of the current order that work—namely, free speech, free art, and free trade.

Anarchism can only be something if it’s as straightforward as possible. Clear about its political, geopolitical, economic, and cultural meaning. Now, I talked about its cultural meaning. In a way, a pluralist system is still an open society, in the Popper sense, but set up differently. It’s a decentralized, open society. From an authoritarian open society to a libertarian open society

Western pluralist anarchism would be an outgrowth of classical liberalism, not a Marxist/fascist dictatorship. So, it would keep the things that work in classical liberalism.

It would differ on two sides with modern neoliberalism. One, it is decentralized into different self-governing political bodies that come together to manage the affairs of the whole federation. Two, it will accept autonomous zones for people who want to drop out. In this way, it’s anarchist because you can leave if you don’t want to join. This means you won’t pay any tax but will not get any benefits. Already, the state accepts some of these autonomous zones to some degree, but this would become bigger and more official.

If anarchism propagates in a world like this, it could be a realistic political movement that, for example, competes with the new generation of communists.

As Preston said, anarchism (as a political movement) is at a crossroads. Cake Boy tried to make it up to date again. If it is not reset, it will disappear very soon.