academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Antony Sammeroff
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
Regan
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X HumectressBy Cake Boy
Essential Libertarians
So, anarchists listened to me. A leftist anarchist and a more libertarian anarchist talked to each other on the essential libertarian stream. Look at this video. I once had this idea of these people debating each other.
This was my political goal: to build a bridge between the woke/progressive libertarians and the conservative/rightwing-orientated libertarians in order to find a middle ground.
The second goal was to define a realistic anarchist system for the 21st century. I wanted to do this because I saw the communists doing the same.
Anarchism for the 21st century would be :
A federation of social/political and economic bodies, combined with autonomous zones, within a neoliberal or socialist hegemony
So, political anarchism for the 21st century is a pluralist libertarianism, functioning with a neoliberal or socialist hegemony, as an experimental form of order.
The critique of this kind of federalism is that it’s still more or less a state—a state consisting of small micro-states. This critique comes out of the individualist and agorist spaces. I understand their viewpoint. They are more about direct action, not about creating something political. They are apolitical.
This is a bit like the split between Bookchin and the people Bookchin revolted against, the individualist anarchists/Stirnerites, whom Bookchin saw as decadent.
This tension will always exist in anarchism because it has an individualist/existentialist branch and a political branch.
The federation of different political bodies would be the political expression of anarchism. People who don’t like that just don’t join it or work on it. The same can be said of the Rojava project. If you don’t like that, if that’s too political/statist for you, don’t join it. It’s as easy as that. I never understood the dispute between Bob Black and Bookchin. A pointless fight. These kinds of pointless fights destroyed modern anarchism.
Two branches
I think it’s important that we understand that there is an individualist/European anarchism and a pragmatist political anarchism—different flavors for different kinds of people.
It also has something to do with what stage you are in your life. For example, sometimes you want to live for yourself, help yourself, work on yourself, define yourself, and ensure your needs are met in any way. Then individualism is attractive for you, while political anarchism would distract you. I remember when I was around leftists, I often thought, What about me? But what about life? I don’t care about all these big geopolitical issues right now.
Some people are already happy with who they are and where they are in their lives, and then they have space in their head to work on something bigger, something political.
I can understand that Bob Black hates work. But I can also understand that Bookchin was thinking about a system in which work and the economy would be slightly different.
Leftist critique on the proposal
Another critique on pluralism, coming out of the leftist anarchist space:
In the essential libertarian podcast, Re-education (the leftist anarchist) says that the problem with a pluralist anarchism/federation is that everyone would join the leftist/socialist zones. He says, why would you pay rent if you get a bit of land for free in the leftist zone? I get his point.
You can see it like this. The good thing about a federation like this is that the zones/cantons will have to compete with each other. The libertarian landlord can ask for rents, but they can never be too high because then people move to the leftist zone, or they would homestead a full autonomous zone (some of these places still exist in American deserts)
This idea of competing social zones actually also came out of classical liberal theory. Liberal economists saw it as something that could potentially be a system for the future. Some days ago, I heard a German liberal/neoliberal economist thinking about a system like this. He used to be a fan of Thatcher politics, but now he has shifted to a radical pluralist/federalist vision.
Re-education thinks that his anarcho communist system is the best. But what if people do not want to function within something like that? What if I want to pay rent? What if I want to own my own land? What if I want to earn money?
I also don’t get why libertarians want to live in capitalism, but I don’t care as long as they leave me alone. I mean, I also don’t understand why people are into BDSM, but I’m ok with it, as long as they don’t force it on me.
So, I understand Reeducate’s critique, but this is the only option anarchists have if they want to be open and, well, anarchist. Do you really want to force people to be part of your commune? This will not create a sustainable situation; sooner or later, people will revolt against it.
The core philosophical problem here is friction between a postmodern and a modernist worldview. The postmodernist will say: Let cultures shape their own destiny. The modernist/leftist will say: Everyone needs to be freed from capitalism and reactionary tendencies, by force if necessary.
The Rojava potential
If the whole right-wing libertarian movement supported Rojava confederalism and Rojava ensured that these right-wing libertarian people could live within the Rojava rationale the way they wanted, then (political) anarchism would be revived again. It would have a consistent theory, praxis, and mass support.
So, you could ask yourself, how could the Rojava Kurds integrate the Rothbard and Mises people within their political structures so they don’t bite each other? If that question is answered, modern anarchism made a huge step forward. And I think this is possible. What do Rothbard/Mises supporters want? They want private property, markets, the ability to own guns, free speech, and no taxes. A lot of these things are possible in Rojava. As Springtime of Nations points out, in one of his videos
So, it seems that rightwing libertarians can join in such a leftist system. They will have different views than the progressive feminists living in Rojava, shaping its culture, but this wouldn’t be a problem as long as they are not forced to be part of anything. Rojava has a leftist/feminist identity, but still, there are also Muslims in the region, and this isn’t a problem. The Kurdish feminists don’t force the Muslim women to take off their headscarves.
A democratic confederalism should be able to integrate Austrian economics within its structure: free currencies, free banking, private property, and cantons of private entrepreneurship next to communal/communist cantons.
Scholars should think more about the possibilities of integrating Rojava leftism with right-wing libertarianism. How do you blend Bookchin and Rothbard?
Now we see how the rightwing libertarians move closer to the whole MAGA circus. I don’t think MAGA has anything to offer to them. MAGA cares about nationalism and cultural conservatism, not about individualism. MAGA is not about classical liberalism but about imperialist oligarchy and corporate neoliberalism. MAGA will stab you in the back, and it will lie about everything just to keep power.
We see current leftist anarchists move closer to Marxism/communism. This is also a death end street, as we have seen in the past, multiple times.
Conclusion
Debates between individualist anarchists and the more moderate political anarchists are fruitless. They come from different perspectives and philosophical fundaments, so they don’t understand each other.
A redefined libertarian unity is the only way forward because anarchism cannot be a communist or capitalist monopoly.
CAKE BOY
Attack the System
Categories: Anarchism/Anti-State
It seems neither the left nor the right intends to unite in one piece. There’s probably only a handful of them. Maybe make some kind of allied unity platform. Let whoever wants to join unity. We will work together, struggle and fight for a place under the sun, share experience on effective measures of resistance against the state. I wish we could, but I don’t think we can.
Ok, so, we do know that unity with authoritarian movements is not possible. Forget about MAGA and leninism
Is libertarian unity not possible? Can a Mises supporter/Ancap live within Rojava, without any problems? Can he/she do his/her job, trade, things? If so, than anarchist unity seems to be possible
Unity is possible, if you agree on the endpoint. You can both fight for a confederation, in which there can be markets, and communist cantons. This could happen, if you forget about all the cultural issues. Ancaps are often conservative, ancoms are progressive, but it doesn’t really matter. Its a non issue. Tradwifes and feminists can just live next to each others.
Im not gonna make any platform. Im not an activist. Im ony someone who thinks and reads, and than thinks etc. Im apolitical
As long as anarchism is so devided, it will never be able to achieve something. This Rojava thing seems to have both markets, and socialism, progressivism and conservatism within its borders. This is allready a sort of panarchy/libertarian unity
You could also ask yourself. Why would every ancom always be against any kind of money? And why would every ancap always be against any form of solidarity? And why not both? A part of the culture is sharing, the other side is individualism etc.
If nothing happens, than the upcoming ten years will be on the internet again, for anarchism. People on the internet, calling each other names, and fighting the silly culture war
A positive side of this Bookshin/Rojava thing, was that at least something happend, within libertarianism. Something in the real world, not on the internet. And anarchists can/should built on this something.
cake
> Is libertarian unity not possible? Can a Mises supporter/Ancap live within Rojava, without any problems? Can he/she do his/her job, trade, things? If so, than anarchist unity seems to be possible
I am not well versed in the political structure of Rojava and the resulting laws. But from what I can read, there are no regular businesses anywhere, it is not clear if it is possible to establish one, they have cooperatives everywhere, property rights are there, but strictly limited. If a business is deemed “too big” it is collectivized. I don’t think it’s gonna work because of the polarization. Their regime comes from clearly ancom roots, do you think they will give up their principles for the sake of the people they have ideas about from the opinions of other ancoms that have filled almost the entire anarcho-movement from the very beginning, literally KILLING diversity?
> Im not gonna make any platform. Im not an activist. Im ony someone who thinks and reads, and than thinks etc. Im apolitical
Well, how can you be apolitical if you write your articles about politics on a political website? Why are you doing it if you’re not going to do anything anyway? Giving out advice without checking it yourself is not a good idea.
> People on the internet, calling each other names, and fighting the silly culture war
Not only in internet. That’s also the reason it won’t work out.
> A positive side of this Bookshin/Rojava thing, was that at least something happend, within libertarianism. Something in the real world, not on the internet. And anarchists can/should built on this something.
Maybe I’m out of the loop, but I don’t think anything seems to have happened yet. Maybe you have an insider on the ancap movement in Rojava, but if there was such a thing, it would be written about in the news or on anarchist sites, but there is no such thing. If there isn’t one, it’s best not to say so in advance.
A view things :
Springtime of nations, the ancap channel, made a video about Rojava. It seems that they are positive about it….I wouldn’t have thought this
They say : Rojava is not communist, it not a democracy (they don’t like democracy) and they have private property, and the taxes are very low (because they only tax people to create the militia)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J4jP0vLApc&t=225s
This video is a breakthrough, in anarchist development. An eyeopener for me
property rights are there, but strictly limited. If a business is deemed “too big” it is collectivized
Do ancaps want big businesses? The ancaps that just want their own little shop, could live in Rojava. The ones that want to be CEO’s of Walmart can than stay in America.
What is your aim? Neoliberal capitalism, or smallscale consumer markets? Its a difference. An ancap thats middle class, has different goals than the CEO ancap. Now we act as if its all the same. Ancaps that just want their own little business, aren’t that different from mutualists (mutualists don’t even want to forbid private businesses, they aim for voluntary change).
Their regime comes from clearly ancom roots, do you think they will give up their principles
Look, these Kurdish woman are very feminist and progressive. Still they do not force their cultural views on the muslims and christians living there. Its a multicultural setting. This is something new for anarchism, because European ancoms often want to force a mono culture. They want everyone to have their culture. The Kurds don’t have that, it seems. They live next to more or less conservative people. If they can do this in the cultural sphere, why shouldn’t they do it in the economic sphere as well?
but if there was such a thing, it would be written about in the news or on anarchist sites,
Ancaps don’t write about ancom things, and ancoms don’t write about ancap things. There is strict segregation. It should have been in the anarchist news, that someone like springtime of nations somehow is positive about Rojava. People should have interviewed him, and ask him more questions about it. Because its something new, something interesting.
Im not political, because i don’t make parties, i don’t make federations, i don’t do protests, i don’t do actions. Im just a thinker..And i can think better than most people. I help you think
Im doing it, because im bored, and i like to do it. I do thinks i like to do.
Cake
> Do ancaps want big businesses? The ancaps that just want their own little shop, could live in Rojava. The ones that want to be CEO’s of Walmart can than stay in America.
I didn’t say Ancaps want big business, I said they can count on their notions that they have big business.
> Look, these Kurdish woman are very feminist and progressive. Still they do not force their cultural views on the muslims and christians living there. Its a multicultural setting. This is something new for anarchism, because European ancoms often want to force a mono culture. They want everyone to have their culture. The Kurds don’t have that, it seems. They live next to more or less conservative people. If they can do this in the cultural sphere, why shouldn’t they do it in the economic sphere as well?
Because it’s a peculiarity of this region, they don’t do it because they’ll get their heads kicked in, unlike Europe or etc. They are completely happy with the economic policy there, why would they change it, for the sake of people they don’t know, or know very poorly. Ancaps were never born there, so why should they let them in?
> Ancaps don’t write about ancom things, and ancoms don’t write about ancap things. There is strict segregation. It should have been in the anarchist news, that someone like springtime of nations somehow is positive about Rojava. People should have interviewed him, and ask him more questions about it. Because its something new, something interesting.
They write about each other, not always of course, and not very nice things.
> Im not political, because i don’t make parties, i don’t make federations, i don’t do protests, i don’t do actions. Im just a thinker..And i can think better than most people. I help you think
That’s great. Just don’t write about the Kurds having a libertarian union of left and right when the latter is not there and never was. That’s overly reassuring. So as not to accidentally twist it, you could check the facts and provide them here. As you have already written above ask the Kurds what they think about the Ancaps and in general about their alliance with them.
A few things :
In the past, Bookchin said : i rather live in a rightwing libertarian system, than in state socialism. Now, these days, most ancoms in this country would rather go for communism. They allign themselves with marxists/leninists. So something changed here. Leftist anarchists, became more and more autoritarian. This had to do with the fact that a lot of communists became anarchists, or ‘anarchists’, and they took their autoritarian humanism with them. They turned anarchism in a totalitarian movement, demanding change and control, in all aspects of life
why would they change it, for the sake of people they don’t know, or know very poorly. Ancaps were never born there, so why should they let them in?
Look, suppose i would go to Rojava. And i would said to them : Im someone who likes to read Mises, but i still want to join your militia. Would they refuse me? No, they wouldn’t care, as long as i don’t disrupt anything, and pay the tarrif for the militia. If i would go there, and if i would set up a bakery, would they send me away? No…As long as i dont disrupt the cooperatives. If we say that Rojava is mutualists, which some people say, than private business can exist there. Because mutualism is not against people who want to set up private business. Its just that culturally they prefer cooperatives.
Kurds what they think about the Ancaps and in general about their alliance with them
The YPG should have responded on the video of springtime of nations. In the comment of the video, you see kurds that are happy with their work. But there is no official statement. They should have been more clear about this.
You can imagine that ancaps are happy about aspects of Rojava. You can also imagine that ancoms would be happy with aspects of an American state that is ruled by the libertarian party. Its not all black and white. The woke/totalitarian humanist era learned people to think in pure black and pure white. But the reality is often grey
Cake