By Cake Boy

The left is rightwing phobic, Preston said to me.

The left is more concerned with fighting the right than with fighting actual imperialism, he said.

Yes, so the thing is. As you know, I’m in favor of free speech. So, Preston should say everything he thinks. That’s the nice thing about me: I actually practice what I preach. If I say that freedom is important to me, then I let people talk. I think about it, then respond, which every anarchist thinker should do.

So, let’s look at this idea. Is the right phobic? And with rightwing, I mean white supremacist rightwing, which is a very, very small subculture within the rightwing politics.

There is a big difference between separatist white supremacists and violent white supremacists. Same as there is a big difference between radical Christians and violent radical Christians. Muslims, and terrorist Muslims. Jews and Zionists.

But everyone knows white supremacist organizations for their violence. If I put a white power symbol on a poster, then everyone thinks about violence. You can say, well, I’m a white nationalist, but I’m not violent; I want to separate; I want my own place to live with other white people. Therefore, I use white power symbols. Yes, but 99,9999 percent of the people read the white power symbol as a threat. Because it has always been used by people who are into violent behavior. The bald men, who wore army boots, were the ones who attacked people. They were the ones using these white power symbols. They were the ones calling themselves ‘white nationalists. It’s not only the left who doesn’t like them. Liberals, libertarians, greens, social democrats, they all dislike that. Nobody likes that stuff. You don’t have to be a woke person to dislike the white power misery.

Being a white supremacist and not being seen as a statist fascist is a little bit the same as wearing dreadlocks, smoking weed, wearing the red, yellow, and green colors, and then being surprised that people think you might listen to reggae music.

White nationalism and white power symbolism have always been about violence. And yes, most people are, in a way, ‘phobic’ towards violence. If you are alone on the street, and you see a group of ten skinheads who wear army boots, who are drunk, and who have white power symbols on their jackets and nationalist flag symbols, then you would rather walk in another direction. Because you know they are the kind of guys that are violent all the time. They are the ones who get into fights and dislike black people, gay people, liberal people, alternative people, etc. So, it’s pretty normal to be ‘phobic’ about them.

I’m, in a way, ‘phobic’ about fascists. I’m also ‘phobic’ about Antifa. Antifa is also a sort of fascist, but coming from the left. Leftist fascists.

Real Anarchism doesn’t like imperialism/cultural imperialism/war, of course, but that doesn’t mean that anarchism is a fan of white power symbols and ‘white nationalist’ festivals/parties. Anarchism and libertarianism have nothing to do with that subculture.

We know the whole white power/white nationalist thing. We know the men who are bald, who organize small festivals in Germany, where they listen to hardcore music, where they drink beer, and where they are angry about ‘the Jews.’

I don’t see why I shouldn’t be critical about white supremacy and white nationalism. I don’t know why I should act like that. A site like Attack the System attracts a lot of anarchists and libertarians. Do you want them to act as if they are a big fan of the white power nonsense?

Most of them will tolerate it, but that’s all. It is the same as a neoliberal or a social democrat who tolerates white nationalists, but they have nothing to do with it, and they will be vocal about it.

So, as we say, white nationalist separatism could exist within an anarchist/libertarian federation. But that doesn’t mean that it represents anarchism.

I also see that Americans don’t really understand what communism and fascism meant for Europe. Here in Europe, we actually lived under these systems. It’s as loaded/sensitive for example issues around race, and police violence, in America.

The pluralist theory is critical of centralization, I would say. And imperialism is a very extreme outcome of centralization. But I think the theory can’t fight imperialism on its own. It could create a space in the world in which politics are decentralized. But it would than still exist within the borders of some kind of imperialist power, probably. For example, suppose that a European country would become a pluralist federation. Then, that country would still be within the borders of the European superpower.

It’s a bit like what Emile Armand said. He said the communists could get the anarchists’ favor if they let the anarchists experiment with a free zone within the communist/USSR domain. Then, the anarchists wouldn’t necessarily be an ‘anti-imperialist force’. The anarchists then wouldn’t attack the USSR as long as the USSR let them live the way they wanted. So, in that sense anarchism isn’t inherently anti-imperialist, it just wants to be left alone. Same as a squat in your local city, isn’t anti-imperialist. The squatters just want to be left alone.

I often associate the idea of ‘fighting the imperium and overcoming it’ with Marxist/communist politics. In my view, anarchism is more about ‘dropping out’.

Next time, I want to analyze this interesting post. 

Otto Dix’s painting Prague Street (1920)