Konkin on agorism vs. anarcho-capitalism
While it’s not a comprehensive answer in my opinion, we can find a good starting point in distinguishing agorism from anarcho-capitalism in this interview with SEK3:
Q: What are the main differences between left-libertarianism/agorism and anarcho-capitalism?
SEK3 - There are several ways of looking at this, from a theoretical view, from a strategic view, with left jargon, with right terminology, etc., but it’s a fair question.
In theory, those calling themselves anarcho-capitalists (I believe Jarrett Wollstein, in his defection from Objectivism, coined the term back in early 1968) do not differ drastically from agorists; both claim to want anarchy (statelessness, and we pretty much agree on the definition of the State as a monopoly of legitimized coercion, borrowed from Rand and reinforced by Rothbard). But the moment we apply the ideology to the real world (as the Marxoids say, “Actually Existing Capitalism” [1]) we diverge on several points immediately.
First and foremost, agorists stress the Entrepreneur, see non-statist Capitalists (in the sense of holders of capital, not necessary ideologically aware) as relatively neutral drone-like non-innovators, and pro-statist Capitalists as the main Evil in the political realm[2]. Hence our favorable outlook toward “conspiracy theory” fans, even when we think they’re misled or confused. As for the Workers and Peasants, we find them an embarrassing relic from a previous Age at best and look forward to the day that they will die out [3] from lack of market demand (hence my phrase, deliberately tweaking the Marxoids, “liquidation of the Proletariat”). One can sum that up in the vulgar phrase, “If the State had been abolished a century ago, we’d all have robots and summer homes in the Asteroid belt.”
The “Anarcho-capitalists” tend to conflate the Innovator (Entrepreneur) and Capitalist[4], much as the Marxoids and cruder collectivists do. (It’s interesting that the gradual victory of Austrian Economics, particularly in Europe, has led to some New Leftists at least to take our claim seriously that the Capitalist and Entrepreneur are very different classes requiring different analyses, and attempt to grapple with the problem [from their point of view] that creates for them.)
Agorists are strict Rothbardians, and, I would argue in this case, even more Rothbardian than Rothbard [5], who still had some of the older confusion in his thinking. But he was Misesian, and Mises made the original distinction between Innovators/Arbitrageurs and Capital-holders (i.e., mortgage-holders, coupon-clippers, financiers, worthless heirs, landlords, etc.). With the Market largely moving to the ‘net, it is becoming ever-more pure entrepreneurial, leaving the brick ‘n’ mortar “capitalist” behind.
But it is dealing with current politics and current defence where Agorists most strongly differ from “anarcho-capitalists.” A-caps generally (and they have lots of individual variation) believe in involvement with existing political parties (libertarian, Republican, even Democrat and Socialist, such as the Canadian NDP), and, in the extreme case, even support the Pentagon and U.S. Defense complex to fight communism (I wonder what their excuse is now?) until we somehow get to abolishing the State. Agorists, as you have undoubtedly picked up, are revolutionary; we don’t see the market triumphing without the collapse of the State and its ruling caste, and, as I point out in New Libertarian Manifesto, historically, they just don’t go without unleashing senseless violence on the usually peaceful revolutionaries who then defend themseelves.
My notes:
[1] For an excellent indictment of “actually existing capitalism” as a statist phenomenon (i.e. state tainted markets; property title fraudulently held by state allies, et cetera) rather than a free market , refer to Kevin Carson’s The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand: Corporate Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege. While Carson is a mutualist rather than an agorist, he has himself noted the obvious — that his historical work (such as the above) can pretty much be argued for on purely Rothbardian grounds. Agorists do so.
[2] Refer to New Left historian Gabriel Kolko’s work “The Triumph of Conservatism” and C. Wright Mills‘ work on power elite theory. Rothbard incorporated these into radical libertarian class theory deriving from the “industrial” or liberal class theory of Comte and Dunoyer. Konkin radically refined Rothbard’s work into agorist class theory.
Very important is the recognition that, when speaking of the purported property of the capitalists (holders of capital) among the political class, “Much of that property is stolen. Much is of dubious title” as Karl Hess put it. Anarcho-capitalism never rose to Hess’s challenge, despite the ability of Rothbardian property theory to address it. Agorist revolutionary theory, positing emergence of revolutionary security and arbitration enterprises from underground, does so. The agorists are free to ignore fraudulent property title of state allies that the anarcho-capitalists (trapped in conservatism and political reformism) can’t ignore for systemic and cultural, rather than purely ideological, reasons.
[3] It should be noted here that Konkin did not want workers themselves to literally die, but for the working class, in Marx’s words, to “abolish itself as a class” — by becoming the revolutionary entrepreneuriat Konkin foresaw.
[4] This an-cap tendency Konkin speaks of is very closely related to Carson’s identification of the tendency he calls “vulgar libertarianism” — conflating the results of statist market intervention with a free market. An-caps typically downplay, soft-pedal, ignore and, in some cases, are completely unaware of their own class theory. While they rightfully denounce loudly the state as banditry, their eyes glaze over once the wealth the state steals has been transferred to some state allied plutocrat not literally on a civil service payroll (e.g Haliburton). They typically contradict their own (Rothbardian) property theory by defending the possessors of stolen loot as if they were legitimate property owners. When they don’t, they still typically fail to conceive of any way to act on it. In this manner, anarcho-capitalism becomes the perpetuation of injustice.
Where does this inconsistency between the existing anarcho-capitalist movement and Rothbardian ideology come from? Rothbard failed to completely understand the full implications of his ideas on class and never himself developed a theory of revolution. Not trusting the state to redistribute property, that being the problem in the first place, an-caps with no theory of revolution have no idea how to address the issue of state stolen property — an issue big enough to have largely sparked the entire socialist movement in the first place! Konkin accomplished this within the Rothbardian tradition, though. Konkinites are agorists.
[5] See [4] above. Rothbardian property theory can not, for all practical purposes, be fully applied in the absence of agorist class theory and the agorist theory of revolution. Doing so, though, makes agorists more left wing than any statist Bolshevik. By providing a theoretical framework for the revolutionary redistribution of property, agorism is arguably socialist, despite Konkin’s negative use of the term socialism to refer solely to state socialism — yet agorism is also the purest and most radical form of free-market libertarianism.
Share This
This is great Brad. Fantastic. I wonder what “Uncle Tony” would think, since he seems to “know” SEK3 rather well.
(BTW he’s not a plant, he’s just crazy)
It appears to me that “Agorism” is simply a marketing gimmick to sell Konkin’s books. “Agorism” clearly is simply one person’s interpretation of anarcho-capitalism. Konkin has pretended that he’s come up with something unique but it’s not at all. Anarcho-capitalism can cover a wide range of interpetations and attitudes. I take offense that he makes up views that he attributes to all anarcho-capitalists. I’m an anarcho-capitalist and I do not equate enterpreneurship with investing, as he claims anarcho-capitalists “conflate.” Does that make me an “agorist”? No, I’m still an anarcho-capitalist. And who is he to call investors “drones”? Sounds like a personal attack to me. Investors are crucial to entrepreneurship. Venture capitalists must exercise a lot of intelligence to determine which startups to fund. And who is he to say that anarcho-capitalists “generally believe in involvement with existing political parties”? How does he know this? I don’t see any reason to think anything other than that some anarcho-capitalists do and some don’t. There is nothing special at all about “Agorism.” Konkin’s philosophy really does not deserve having it’s own name if he’s going to attribute beliefs to anarcho-capitalists that not all anarcho-capitalists, and for all he knows, possibly not even most anarcho-capitalists have.
The “notes” from Brad Spangler don’t make any sense either. What does this mean: “Very important is the recognition that, when speaking of the purported property of the capitalists (holders of capital) among the political class, “Much of that property is stolen. Much is of dubious title†as Karl Hess put it. Anarcho-capitalism never rose to Hess’s challenge, despite the ability of Rothbardian property theory to address it.” For Spangler’s information, Karl Hess WAS an anarcho-capitalist. He said so himself. It’s not as if Rothbard is the only anarcho-capitalist. Spangler also engages in the same tactics as Konkin by attributing ideas and positions to anarcho-capitalists that not all of them have and differentiating “Agorists” as not being anarcho-capitalists. It’s absurd. Agorists ARE anarcho-capitalists. Don’t let Konkin’s marketing gimmicks fool you.
Anarcho-capitalism is simply any philosophy that supports a free market in goods and services including defense services and doesn’t have a labor theory of value. That leaves a lot of room for varying interpretations and applications. Rothbard does not have a monopoly on the term “anarcho-capitalism.” It is now much bigger than him. One doesn’t have to have a philosophy identical to Rothbard’s to be an anarcho-capitalist. For example, David Friedman is an anarcho-capitalist too, you know? His anarcho-capitalism is quite different from Rothbard’s but it’s still anarcho-capitalism. If someone wants to call their own version by another name, that’s fine. But, don’t attribute positions to anarcho-capitalists “in general” that they may not have not have to sell books.
Another note. This statement form Spangler is totally false: “While they rightfully denounce loudly the state as banditry, their eyes glaze over once the wealth the state steals has been transferred to some state allied plutocrat not literally on a civil service payroll (e.g Haliburton). They typically contradict their own (Rothbardian) property theory by defending the possessors of stolen loot as if they were legitimate property owners.” Read “Confiscation and the Homstead Principle” by Rothabard http://mises.org/journals/lf/1969/1969_06_15.pdf in the Libertarian Forum, which is right under Hess’s essay that he praises. He explicitly advocates the seizure of “property built on funds stolen from taxpayers.” Rothbard says “What of the myriad of corporations which are integral parts
of the military-industrial complex, which not only get over
half or sometimes virtually all their revenue from the
government but also participate in mass murder? What are
their credentials to “private” property? Surely less than
zero. As eager lobbyists for these contracts and subsidies,
as co-founders of the garrison state, they deserve confiscation
and reversion of their property to the genuine private
sector as rapidly as possible. To say that their “private”
property must be respected is to say that the property
stolen by t h e horsethief and t h e murdered must be
“respected”. He even goes on to suggest how this may be accomplished, even utilizing the state for redistribution, which contradicts Spangler’s statement that “Rothbard failed to completely understand the full implications of his ideas on class and never himself developed a theory of revolution. Not trusting the state to redistribute property, that being the problem in the first place, an-caps with no theory of revolution have no idea how to address the issue of state stolen property.”
Don’t make claims about anarcho-capitalists unless you have read all material from all anarcho-capitalists.
Actually, I’m quite familiar with Rothbard’s essay “Confiscation and the Homestead Principle” from back during Rothbard’s alliance with the New Left phase. It was instrumental in development of my current views. I was refering to a *tendency* of the modern anarcho-capitalist movement as it exists in dumbed down form today. Similarly, with regard to your initial comment, pause and consider the phrase “tends to” and words like “typically” as acknowledgement that I’m putting forward some generalizations — valid generalizations, but ones I freely admit are generalizations.
And, BTW, you’re kind of missing the point — that while State seizure of the property of state allied monopolist enterprises as a supposed prelude to authentic privatization may be justifiable under Rothbardian property theory, it’s severely problematic for political libertarians to advocate state seizure of nominally private enterprises. That’s why while Rothbard considered the notion, he dropped it like a hot potato. The only way Rothbardian property theory can realistically be acted on without contradicting libertarian principle in such cases is by revolutionary homesteading and/or restitution seizures. Rothbardian property theory can not accomplish that all on its own. You need a theory of revolution.
Furthermore, let’s not get into all of the contradictions involved in theoretical politically carried out de-statizing by “libertarian” politicians. Since libertarianism questions the very legitimacy of the state, just how can the government legitimately privatize anything, in terms of selecting a particular person or people to transfer title to formerly state-owned assets to? It can’t.
I disagree that you are making “valid generalizations.” What you are doing is defining anarcho-capitalism as you personally want to define it, by coming up with these “generalizations” that are unfounded. Have you done a study on what anarcho-capitalists “generally” think other than wanting to have market provided defense?
And, I reiterate my point that agorism is anarcho-capitalism too. Agorism is not a separate philosophy. It’s simply one of many applications of “anarcho-capitalism,” which again, is simply any philosophy that supports a free market in goods and services including defense services and doesn’t have a labor theory of value. That alone is a sufficient condition for a philosophy being a form of anarcho-capitalism.
And, you’re attributing positions to the “modern anarcho-capitalist movement” does not make sense. There is no anarcho-capitalism “movement.” There are simply various anarcho-capitalists each with their own ideas. And again, I don’t know how you can make generalizations when Friedman’s version of anarcho-capitalism is nearly as popular as Rothbard’s version but so much different.
I suggest that you not generalize about “anarcho-capitalists” and not make generalizations about them as if agorists are not anarcho-capitalists too. There is no “anarcho-capitalist” movement of which positions can be generalized.
Among other things, I disagree with your definition of anarcho-capitalism. Although it covers the basics, it ignores important points I have already explicitly raised.
Anarcho-capitalism is a philosophy which supports a free market in goods and services (including defense and arbitration services), doesn’t have a labor theory of value, lacks a theory of revolution and as a consequence remains mired in political reformism and doesn’t fully develop and apply its class theory or property theory.
There are also subtler points of information that could be raised, such as lack of a labor theory of value being a largely artificial distinction at this point because the most up to date and sophisticated take on the labor theory of value (Carson’s) is so heavily subjectivized as to make the debate between subjective value theory and LTV advocates largely a moot point of little more than academic interest.
It’s not true at all that “lacks a theory of revolution.” It depends on the anarcho-capitalist. You don’t seem to get that anarcho-capitalism is not ONE philosophy. It’s a GROUP of different philosophies that merely have the same premise, which is that defense would be supplied by the market (and to rule out mutualism, does not have a labor theory of value). The number of different anarcho-capitalist philosophies is a great as the number of theorists, and there are many.
Just as “anarchism” is not a single philosophy, and just as “individualist anarchism” is not a single philosophy, “anarcho-capitalism” is not a single philosophy.
Maybe at one time there was a single “anarcho-capitalism” when Rothbard first named it, but that’s not how it is anymore. Everybody and his brother has his own unique anarcho-capitalism.
It’s not true at all that anarcho-capitalism “lacks a theory of revolution.” It depends on the anarcho-capitalist. You don’t seem to get that anarcho-capitalism is not ONE philosophy. It’s a GROUP of different philosophies that merely have the same premise, which is that defense would be supplied by the market (and to rule out mutualism, does not have a labor theory of value). The number of different anarcho-capitalist philosophies is a great as the number of theorists, and there are many.
Just as “anarchism” is not a single philosophy, and just as “individualist anarchism” is not a single philosophy, “anarcho-capitalism” is not a single philosophy.
Maybe at one time there was a single “anarcho-capitalism” when Rothbard first named it, but that’s not how it is anymore. Everybody and his brother has his own unique anarcho-capitalism.
And, BTW, with regard to this:
I was apolitical until I read Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty” 17 years ago and I’ve been active in the libertarian movement ever since. If that’s not good enough (in your view) to have an opinion on the character and composition of that movement and elements of it, to include defending that opinion as at least somewhat accurate based on that experience, then I’m going to have to say I disagree with you on that as well.
It’s not true at all that “lacks a theory of revolution.” It depends on the anarcho-capitalist. You don’t seem to get that anarcho-capitalism is not ONE philosophy. It’s a GROUP of different philosophies that merely have the same premise, which is that defense would be supplied by the market (and to rule out mutualism, does not have a labor theory of value). The number of different anarcho-capitalist philosophies is a great as the number of theorists, and there are many.
Just as “anarchism” is not a single philosophy, and just as “individualist anarchism” is not a single philosophy, “anarcho-capitalism” is not a single philosophy.
Maybe at one time there was a single “anarcho-capitalism” when Rothbard first named it, but that’s not how it is anymore. Everybody and his brother has his own unique anarcho-capitalism.
You defining people out of being anarcho-capitalists if they have a theory of revolution makes no sense at all. I’m an anarcho-capitalist. If I come up with a theory of revolution that would make me no longer an anarcho-capitalist? No, that’s absurd. I suggest you simply get an encylcopedia and look up the definition of anarcho-capitalism.
And as for Friedman, while he has made some valuable contributions to anarcho-capitalist thought, it’s my perception that Rothbard is widely acknowledged as the most advanced and influential anarcho-capitalist thinker. For that matter, the Tannehills managed to be much more rigorous in a far more succinct volume if you want to compare the “The Market for Liberty” to Friedman’s “The Machinery of Freedom”. The best critique of Friedman’s version of things can be found in Rothbard’s “Do You Hate the State?”.
We seem to potentially be having an issue with comments functionality, in that some seem to have disappeared. Posting as testuser for diagnostic purposes.
It’s not true at all that “lacks a theory of revolution.” It depends on the anarcho-capitalist. You don’t seem to get that anarcho-capitalism is not ONE philosophy. It’s a GROUP of different philosophies that merely have the same premise, which is that defense would be supplied by the market (and to rule out mutualism, does not have a labor theory of value). The number of different anarcho-capitalist philosophies is a great as the number of theorists, and there are many.
Just as “anarchism” is not a single philosophy, and just as “individualist anarchism” is not a single philosophy, “anarcho-capitalism” is not a single philosophy.
Maybe at one time there was a single “anarcho-capitalism” when Rothbard first named it, but that’s not how it is anymore. Everybody and his brother has his own unique anarcho-capitalism.
You’re making up your own definition when you say that anarcho-capitalism by definition doesn’t have a a theory of revolution. I’m an anarcho-capitalist. If I come up with a theory of revolution does that mean I’m no longer an anarcho-capitalist? Of course not. I suggest you look in an encyclopedia for the definition of anarcho-capitalism.
[…] Konkin on agorism vs. anarcho-capitalism […]