Distinguishing between anarcho-capitalism and agorism
While agorism grew out of “anarcho-capitalism” and retains much from it, their respective theories of progress toward the goal of a stateless society are entirely different. The anarcho-capitalist is a reformist, or at best a gradualist. The agorist is a revolutionary.
The reformist anarcho-capitalist still identifies with the state, even while condemning it rhetorically. Starting from the ethical axiom of the libertarian non-aggression principle, the anarcho-capitalist (lacking a theory of revolution) can only derive from it a political program of attempting to shape state policy toward “less government”, a revamped version of classical liberalism. The anarcho-capitalist is thus a de facto liberal in practice.
The revolutionary agorist instead applies the non-aggression principle (and other aspects of libertarian theory) to their own perspective as an individual to derive an understanding of anarchist revolution as a process of bootstrapping market systems of law and defense which will emerge from below and outside the state. I’ve summarized that process before as follows:
Agorism is revolutionary market anarchism.
In a market anarchist society, the positive functions of law and security will be provided by market institutions, not political institutions. Agorists recognize, therefore, that those institutions can not develop through political reform. Instead, they will come about as a result of market processes.
As government is banditry, revolution culminates in the suppression of government by market providers of security and law. Market demand for such service providers is what will lead to their emergence. Development of that demand will come from economic growth in the sector of the economy that explicitly shuns state involvement (and therefore can not turn to the state in its role as monopoly provider of security and law). That sector of the economy is the counter-economy – black and grey markets.
In essence, the agorist seeks to spread the understanding of counter-economics as productive and ethical disobedience accomplished by first “killing the cop in your head” — an understanding which has philosophical roots going back to la Boetie, at least — in order to make society ungovernable.
This understanding can only be spread one individual at a time. It can not be imposed from above as an approach to state policy. Thus, the agorist and the anarcho-capitalist apply the libertarian non-aggression principle at metaphorical right angles to each other — the revolutionary agorist horizontally and the reformist anarcho-capitalist vertically.
To the anarcho-capitalist who lacks a theory of revolution and still (deep in the back of his mind) identifies with the state, the agorist is supposedly not serious about politics.
On the contrary, the agorist replies. We’re the only ones serious enough about politics to take demonstrably the shortest road to abolishing it.
ADDENDUM: The reformist anarcho-capitalist who sneers out of ignorance and arrogance that agorists are “not serious about politics” is, of course, only recycling the same insults he has suffered from the corporatist “Beltway libertarians” in his own relative radicalism in comparison to them.
Share This
Brad, whatever are you going on about? I am a Market Anarchist and I certainly do not sanction any political means, and neither does anyone I know. We’re all very much in favour of revolution.
So when Ron Paul’s future minions go to kidnap the geographically-incorrect, would you hide ‘em or narc on ‘em? Agorist class theory is quite practical…
When did I say I support Ron Paul’s position on “immigration”? I support the Ron Paul campaign because it might be our last chance in a long time to propagate freedom ideas to the general population, not because I want to make people vote for Ron Paul. Of course I am against any law enforcement in any form, I wouldn’t “narc” on anyone!
I don’t support any change in government except its swift implosion through direct action and active resistance. And I also support counter-economics, although counter-economics alone is not the solution.
Anarchocapitalism is the just the label I use to profess my anti-state, pro-individual liberties stance, but I’m partial to using Agorist or Market Anarchist to proclaim the same ideology of opposing all forms of coercive violence AND promoting greater social cooperation.
I really don’t see where Ron Paul figures into this, unless you are confusing folks like me with the paleoliberals over at LRC.com.
On the subject of politics, I must add that I find political action as repulsive as much as I would participation in a mafia gathering, although like sexual/racial discrimination, I accept that millions of idiots can and will make the wrong choice when they are blind to the full cost of their actions.
Precisely. The idea that we libertarians, anarchists, and everything in between can’t take a nuanced position on this - that if we support the Paul candidacy we are BY DEFINITION in favor of Paul ruling us and everything Paul does or believes in being O.K. with us - it’s just ridiculous. Frankly, it is here that I think you and I really butt heads, Brad.
We are complex beings. We’re in a messy situation. Following mechanistic principles for consistency’s sake to whatever conclusion they take you is a great way to engage in thought experiments and explore ideas. It is not a way to live - at least, I choose not to live and die by consistent principles. I don’t believe I’ll ever have the world figured out in my head that well. In fact, I don’t believe anybody does.
If you honestly think the Paul campaign should be opposed, then oppose it. If you think it should be supported, then support it. Make your arguments, attempt to persuade, but let’s have enough respect for the tradition of anarchism to understand that none of us have it all figured out yet; none of us really, truly know what to do. Anarchists and libertarians have always employed a variety of means towards their goal, and the worst thing we can do is draw sweeping conclusions about others’ intentions or honesty - least of all because of some highly structured value system we’ve worked out in our heads.
My eyes start to glaze over at the first mention of stupid concepts like “agorism”–in fact, at about agor…–and others such as “spontaneous order,” “market liberal,” “polycentric order,” “allodialism,” “Georgism,” Galambosianism, and Larouchianism. We are libertarians. We oppose aggression. We favor private property rights. That is all. That is enough. Anything else is a-political, socialistic, or confusingly redundant.
An interesting post. I have a few quibbles with it, however:
“While agorism grew out of “anarcho-capitalism†and retains much from it, their respective theories of progress toward the goal of a stateless society are entirely different. The anarcho-capitalist is a reformist, or at best a gradualist. The agorist is a revolutionary.”
This is an arbitrary and false distinction. There is no inherent reason why an “anarcho-capitalist” should be reformist or gradualist rather than revolutionary. An anarcho-capitalist could be either depending upon his theory of progress. Do you have some other criterion to distinguish anarcho-capitalism and agorism? If not, they seem to be two words for the same thing.
Also, what do you mean by de facto liberal? Classical liberal? Left-liberal? Just a liberal as in working within the system instead of rejecting it outright? Perhaps it is idiosyncratic on my part, but I tend to think of libertarian market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism or whatever you want to call it as the logical conclusion of a fully consistent liberalism.
One last thing, while it might be acceptable to treat the nonaggression principle as an axiom for the sake of argument, as a mutually agreed upon starting point, it is not in fact an axiom but rather a conclusion requiring philosophical argument to justify.
I would sum it up like this: all agorists are anarcho-capitalists, but not all anarcho-capitalists are agorists. Anarcho-capitalism is neither inherently revolutionary or inherently reformist; but that branch of anarcho-capitalism called agorism is inherently revolutionary.
Anyone who advocates using counter-economics as a tool for the abolition of the state is an agorist. But even though most agorists do not put much faith in the idea of fighting the system from the inside, there doesn’t seem to me to be anything preventing someone from advocating both methods.
There is no term to my knowledge for those anarcho-capitalists who explicitely oppose agorism. In fact, I don’t know if such persons even exist, including Rothbard. Although Rothbard had problems with Konkin’s New Libertarian Manifesto, I don’t recall getting the impression from him that counter-economics should be discouraged.
I believe it’s a misrepresentation of those-anarcho-capitalists-who-advocate-fighting-the-system-from-the-inside that they “identify with the state.” I can’t, of course, declare objectively that none do; but I would suspect that most who advocate fighting the system from the inside have already “killed the cop in their heads” and chosen to advocate this as either A) an additional tool for defense, in addition to counter-economics, or B) a way to show the world that the idea of freedom is not dead.
I personally have no objection to fighting the system from the inside, but would never proclaim that agorists are not serious about politics. I accept counter-economics as a valid tool.
Speaking of Ron Paul, I plan to vote for him despite believing him to be flawed on a variety of positions. In no way, however, do I interpret my vote as giving the system, or giving a Paulian government, justification or validity. Government would still be unethical even if Ron Paul wins, and his use of big government (i.e. coercion) equally unethical. My support is simply defensive.
If I’m a slave and I vote for my slave master, I will never assume the process somehow justifies my position. But I’ll nevertheless vote if it means I get whipped less. And if I find a potential slave-holder who refuses to whip anyone for any reason, I’d all-the-more-gleefully vote for him/her.
Respectfully,
Alex Peak
That’s fine, Alex, but the problem with what you said is that voting does NOT improve the situation. The voice of the individual is useless. Democracy functions by aggregate beliefs, not individual values.
francoistremblay:
If the state’s power rests upon the assumption of consent, then a strong showing for anti-government or small government candidates can signal to those who, although not consenting to being governed, still don’t bother to actively oppose the state in any meaningful way that discontent with the status quo is much stronger and more vibrant than he/she may have initially suspected. Moreover, radical candidates have often achieved political change–without having achieved much electoral success–by swaying the Establishment in their direction. At the risk of making it seem that I’m employing a straw-man argument, I wish to stress that, while we still oppose and condemn the Establishment as inherently resting on corruption and while we maintain that the end goal still needs to be fought for, we can still celebrate those tiny steps in the right direction. Insofar as the radical candidates who lean in our direction sway the Establishment toward its own demise, the situation indeed does improve. And insofar as the vote totals for radical candidates indicate (A) and (B), the appearance of impracticality of agorism will fade (to what small or great degree, I cannot say) and the tendency for libertarian radicalism will become more acceptable both popularly and individually.
(A): to the populas that these radical views are not necessarily “extremist” views (in the derogatory manner people typically use the term “extremist”)
(B): to those radicals who feel alone that they are not alone, and that it might not be futile after all to be more active in their opposition to the state,
Do we come to agreement there? (My apologies in advance for the convolution in a couple of my above sentences.)
Yours,
Alex Peak
“I would sum it up like this: all agorists are anarcho-capitalists, but not all anarcho-capitalists are agorists. Anarcho-capitalism is neither inherently revolutionary or inherently reformist; but that branch of anarcho-capitalism called agorism is inherently revolutionary.”
Alex,
That’s fine with me. In fact, that’s along the same lines I was thinking. Brad doesn’t seem to do this, however. He seems to treat them as separate species each with its own inherent theory of progress.
Alex Peak, I would agree with you if what you said had anything to do with reality.