By Cake Boy

In this text, I want to take a look at political theory in a way that is as realistic as possible. Political theory fascinates me (don’t ask me why), and I want to try to impact it. Today, let’s look at anarchism again.

When we look at anarchism as a system—a constructive/society-based anarchism—how should anarchists treat the land question? Every political theory has to have an idea about the usage of land.

How do the current anarchist schools look at the land?

Ancaps (anarcho-capitalists) say the land is to be bought and sold. People buy the land, that’s it. This is a neoliberal position.

Ancoms (leftist anarchists) say the land is something the community owns. A commune of workers owns the land and democratically decides what happens with it.This anarchism is a sort of Marxist anarchism.

Boston anarchists/mutualists say you perform usufruct over the land. In a way, this is the Lockean/classical liberal position (which I see as the most realistic way to deal with land).

In Ancap, the rightwing ‘elites’ will own the land. In Ancom, the working-class leftists will own the land. In both systems, many people will miss out. Think of the middle class, the rightwing working class, the leftwing elites, religious people, native Americans, small businesses, the somewhat bigger farmers, etc.

Only a pluralist anarchism could be an anarchism for different kinds of people.

If we observe the principles of pluralist anarchism, we can then discuss how these principles can be applied. What would this mean for the land?

If you conceive of anarchism as a pluralism, then basic Ancap and Ancom can’t work because both are totalizing. In Ancap, the landlords own all the land, so they rule the country. In Ancom, councils own all the land, so they rule the country. But rulership under anarchism is a problem. Ancap could lead to feudalism. And Ancom could lead to Antifa-style mob rule.

If you want anarchism to function as a pluralism, then you need to divide the land into different cantons. Suppose 40 percent of the population is socialist, 30 percent capitalist, 20 percent Georgist, and 10 percent communist. In that case, you need to divide the land like that to give every kind of person self-ownership and every kind of community autonomy. In this way, the land is not a commodity but a basis for autonomy (so, in a way, this is the classical liberal perception of land. Land is a fundament for possibilities, not a product).

Within this pluralist approach, every sort of anarchism or other kind of political movement can have a reason to work for this movement. Ancaps and Ancoms do not have to discuss each other; they should just leave each other alone. This is the only way the hundreds of thousands of ancaps, ancoms, and mutualists could work together and be three times as strong as they are now.

There was a commercial in my country in which a girl buys a cake. The people from the store ask, “Do you want strawberry, cherry, chocolate, or vanilla?” She says, “I want them all!” And they say, “That’s possible. You get a cake with a slice of every flavor.”

Anarchism can probably never abolish all the states. However, it could create a zone of radical decentralization within the world.

The problem with the state is also not that it’s a state but that it forces people within its rationale. When there are only states in the world, nobody can flee when these states become dangerous. We have seen in the past how dangerous states can be.

We also have to look at the world through a materialist lens. Can these cantons, these autonomous zones within that pluralism, defend themselves? My perception of anarchism is not pacifism. It’s not an idealist/cultural Marxist movement.

So, all these zones would have their own army and work together to fund a collective army. They could raise taxes, join forces, and defend borders, in combination with voluntary militias.

Could you still call something like this anarchism? You could also call it ‘decentralism’ or ‘radical liberalism’, or ‘federalism’, or ‘libertarianism’. It doesn’t matter how you call it. The questions are: does it work, will it provide, and can it defend itself?

A geopolitical superpower will have this system under its wings and protect it. Or it has to defend itself with a strong army, etc. As Armand said, the communists/USSR can gain the favor of the anarchists as long as they just let the anarchists have autonomy within a certain region. The USSR didn’t want this because it could mean that it would lose its grip over its own population. If the USSR had been more tolerant of the Ukrainian anarchist zones, history would have turned out very differently.

As we can see, anarchism as a political system is pretty difficult. The current Kurdish Rojava/confederalism project is closest to it in this period. This system can exist because Americans sort of use it. Is this a problem? Well, as I said, if it can’t defend itself (if it doesn’t have nuclear weapons), it needs another superpower to accept it and protect it. It can still experiment with different political and economic arrangements within that hegemony. The USA doesn’t care as long as they are within its grip of power.

Same as with Europe. European nations function within American hegemony, but the USA allows them to have a better political system than their own system.

A lot of idealists, cultural Marxists, feminists, and pacifist kind of leftists won’t see the above vision as real anarchism. But this is the only realistic way of looking at anarchism. I’m not a dreamer, and I’m not a fan of John Lennon. I don’t ‘imagine’ anything. I’m a materialist, and a Machiavellian

You could see it a bit like this. In the past, there was a squatter scene here where I live. The social democratic government was not happy with them, but they tolerated the anarchist squatters nonetheless. So, people in this country could live in the ‘normal’ society, or they could join the anarchist infrastructure/subculture. When neoliberalism came, they made squatting illegal again.

You could see anarchism on a geopolitical scale, like this squatting situation. Suppose that you have a world power, such as Europe or the US. Suppose that this world power allows a country to be anarchist or radically decentralized as long as it does not harm the specific world power. Then, the world power would coexist with the autonomous/experimental zone.

If it weren’t under a superstate’s wings, it would need to have an extremely powerful army. This will be very hard for anarchism. So, anarchists should not ‘attack the system’ but make sure the systems accept their secession. So, they should be diplomatic. If you can’t beat them, you don’t have to join them, but at least make sure they won’t destroy you. In the past, the squatter movement ensured good relations with the civilians of the country, as well as the government. In that period of time, they could be something within this society for a short period of time. When they became too rude and demanded too much, the government destroyed the movement (after a lot of clashes on the streets)

If anarchists don’t think about power, economy, or geopolitics, their movement stays childish and meaningless. In a way, they aren’t even a movement. You must understand the cold and cruel world out there for political significance. You have to understand the state and know how statists think when you’re an anarchist. You have to be as clever and cunning as the state is. When we read about an anarchist leader like Bakunin in the 19^th century, we can see that he was as cunning as the state leaders of his time. This is the reason we still hear about him to this day.

Both communists, MAGA conservatives, and democrat neoliberals look at the world through a Realpolitik lens. This is the reason that they have an effect on the world. They are serious movements, besides if you agree/disagree with them.

What irritates me about modern anarchism is that it doesn’t use this Realpolitik approach. By this, it becomes utopian. And utopianism doesn’t have a meaning within politics. When you’re a utopian, it might be better if you become an artist or a poet. We have already seen this problem in Proudhon’s work. Of course, Proudhon was a genius, and his work is full of depth and beauty. But politically speaking, it had a strong idealist undertone. It dreamt of a ‘balanced relationships’ and ‘really free competition’. These might be your ideals, but what does that mean for the world? When you try to explain mutualism to other political factions, they often say: that sounds great…. but also a bit farfetched. And I have to agree with them.

So, what would a Realpolitik version of anarchism mean? It would probably mean a domain within a neoliberal or socialist rationale, where the region is highly decentralized, the people have a lot of control over their institutions (more so than in neoliberal or Marxist states), and people are allowed to bear arms.

If you see it like this, then we could say that of all the countries in Europe, Switzerland is the nearest to anarchism/libertarianism (whatever you want to call it). If the cantons in Switzerland would have even a little bit more autonomy, than you could talk about an anarchism more or less in the sense of how Proudhon saw it.

For now, a serious anarchist movement doesn’t exist, I would say. That’s why I find it problematic to call myself ‘an anarchist.’ It can mean everything and nothing in this period of time.