By 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
