Strategies for the Struggle: Strategy 1, Agorism
Introducing Agorism
Agorism for those wondering is both a philosophy and a tactic and so when I refer to agorism in this article I am using it as such. It can both be a tactic in the struggle and an entire philosophy depending on how you use the ideas within it In my opinion the biggest ideas that are contained with agorism that separate it from other philosophies and that contribute most to the struggle are, (1). counter-economics (2) agorist class theory (3) Explicitly non/a/counter-political means.
As an aside I’ve talked about Agorism before here and here and you can probably still find a lot of my current thoughts on those two talks if you’re curious.
To start though what is agorism? Agorism is defined as revolutionary market anarchism. Now some people see market anarchism as inherently related to anarcho-capitalism but I don’t see that as necessarily being the case (though certainly an-caps can incorporate ideas of agorism into their own ideas). If anything agorism is a more radically left form of anarcho-capitalism/Rothbardianism and I think that’s just really the worst case scenario in my opinion. Furthermore a lot of the ideas of agorism such as counter-economics already have a more social-anarchist bend in dual power and the idea of being non-political and having class theory can be implemented whether you’re an agorist or not.
Now market anarchism is just the idea that the functions of the state should be replaced with the market services provided voluntarily within the context of free association and competition. I believe this also means competition with a truly freed market as well. A friend of mine said yesterday that a truly freed market is just one of the possible anarchic systems that could emerge from bottom up, more egalitarian and organize movements from anarchists and I agree that this is the case. A lot of other left-wing market anarchists like those you can find at C4SS would also, I also think agree with that and certainly would at least have some friendly dispositions towards agorism.
Now what does the revolutionary part of market anarchism means? Well first off what does it mean to be revolutionary all by itself? For myself, it means demanding radical (big) change in the system in some way and going about in an equally (big) radical way. For the agorist this means using something called counter economics (also see this) which is enacting peaceful but illegal activity in an effort to develop a counter economy. A counter-economy as Konkin said isn’t about developing something counter to the idea of an economy but counter to the current idea of what an economy is supposed to be based off of, that is, largely state action.
As far as being revolutionary agorists also have an explicit class theory (and if you’d rather hear it there’s an audio book version here). Why is this revolutionary? Well for one it helps the agorist determine what the enemy is or what, rather, they should be targeting as radical libertarians. Now of course it could (and should) be argued that libertarians qua libertarians all have a class theory but of course some are more spot on than others. I do admit to having a disadvantage here since I haven’t gotten around to read Roderick Long’s “Toward a Libertarian Class Theory” and some of the original and more modern class theorists but nevertheless the agorist class theory is certainly one of the best I’ve seen thus far. Of course you can check out the PDF/audio file for yourself and decide whether it is or not.
In this case the revolution that the agorist wants to happen is a gradual one and not a sudden one because we recognize that the public is largely not in the right mindset for anarchism. If anarchism was to happen tomorrow most people would just form another state through either public or private means because they largely still believe in the idea of the state even if the physical entity is gone. So there’s a lot of work to be done before the radical change comes but through displacing power from the state and giving it back to the individual so that they can live their life more freely.
This idea is of course not new and it’d be historically inaccurate to say that Samuel Edward Konkin III (SEK III) came up with this idea of displacing authority through counter and alternative institutions. Another idea called dual power has also existed for a much longer time. One may also make the argument that it gives a lot more credit to social theory and recognizes different oppressive factors as well, though I’d respond that I don’t think it’s outside the purview of agorists to be aware of those things either. It’s a matter of scope of the individual agorists own viewpoints and actions that largely determines how successfully agorism is implemented.
Agorism as a theory may stress the involvement of the state and the wonders of the market but that doesn’t necessitate that it’s not a useful theory even outside of the market anarchist circles. For instance a lot of the insights of building counter-power, trying to ally ourselves with those whoa re downtrodden or in the counter-economy already but don’t know it are useful ideas that even anarchists outside the market anarchist circles I think can appreciate. Also agorism’s wide range of being applied in many different contexts, whether it’s within the context of a revolution, within the context of recognizing our current condition or where we can go, etc.
I know I’ve skimmed over some points such as the Agorist Class Theory and other things but I aim to more precisely address them in their own sections instead of dedicating so much time to them here. And lastly on the introduction to agorism I don’t think much can beat the New Libertarian Manifesto. It’s not as long as An Agorist Primer and it’s certainly more structured and comprehensive than The Last Whole Introduction to Agorism and is also the first publication Konkin did on it as well.
Which brings me to the man himself and the history that followed…
The History of Agorism
In the mid and late 60s the new left were becoming more and more inline with some libertarian ideas. Some examples of this are the anti-war sentiments and protests, being against corporate welfare and the lack of transparency in government and more. This led to more and more libertarian thinkers such as Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess and a man named Samuel Edward Konkin III (who will now be referred to as SEK III) and others. SEK III drew some of the ideas of the counter-culture from the hippies at the time and developed some of those ideas from there into a counter-economic ideas that applies to libertarianism and the existence of the state. These ideas began forming in 1972-73 when Konkin become more and more vocal about these positions which eventually culminated in the publication of the New Libertarian Manifesto. Konkin then went on to do New Libertarian Notes from 1971 to 1975, the New Libertarian Weekly from 1975 to 1978, and lastly the New Libertarian magazine from ’78 to ’90 (most of this info is comring from The Last Whole Introduction to Agorism by Konkin himself).
Agorism itself, and as an idea and something of a movement still continues today. It largely continued today through the underground economy that’s made up of both people who are aware of libertarianism and those who are not. It continues through constant voluntary exchanges that take place at events like Porcfest and other most likely less official events that you wouldn’t find on Facebook for example. Thus, many of Konkin’s words on this situation I feel are still relevant if not more than ever today. Through the idea of counter-economics, agorist class theory and non/a/counter-political tactics the ideas of agorism still remain in place today. If you want to know more about Konkin then I’d recommend the Libertarian Tradition episode that features Konkin.
How is agorism applicable towards the struggle though?
Agorism and The Struggle
As I’ve said already, there are three ways that seem to distinguish agorism from anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy (and there are others as well but I think these are the biggest ones). And so I’d like to explain how each have their place in the struggle against the state.
Counter-economics
The counter economy is, “All (non-coercive) human action committed in defiance of the state…” (An Agorist Primer pg. 40) Meaning such actions are the study of counter-economist and counter-economics themselves are such actions taking place through individuals. Konkin saw this as a benefit to anarchist thought of course,
“The Counter-Economic alternative gave the agorists a devastating weapon. Rather than slowly amass votes until some critical mass would allow state retreat (if the new statists did not change sides to protect their new vested interests), one could commit civil disobedience profitably, dodging taxes and regulations, having lower costs and (potentially) greater efficiency than one’s statist competitors if any. For many goods and services could only arise or be provided counter-economically.” (The Last Whole Introduction to Agorism, pg. 7)
But how prevalent is counter-economics? After all, if no one is applying these activites, thinking about them, or generally making any use of them, what good are they? Konkin had some answers to this (and Riggenbach also mentioned in the Libertarian Tradition episode that I linked above about some of this as well):
“In the Soviet Union, a bastion of arch-statism and a nearly totally collapsed “official” economy, a giant black market provides the Russians, Armenian, Ukrainian and others with everything from food to television repair to official papers and favors from the ruling class. As the Guardian Weekly reports, Burma is almost a total black market with the government reduced to an army, police, and a few strutting politicians. In varying degrees, this is true of nearly all the Second and Third Worlds” (New Libertarian Manifesto)
Now this is all well and good perhaps, but what about today? One may notice that there have usually been a large number of such informal economies (and I’d think if the government has no place in them and they’re done peacefully, etc. it could fall under agorism) in Africa and also some in Latin America, etc. in the past but what about in the US today? One link I found says,
“As of 2010, the underground economy in the United States alone was estimated to account for over $2 trillion US Dollars (USD) per year in unreported cash holdings. It has also been estimated that up to 80 percent of all US one hundred dollar bills printed every year end up overseas within weeks of their circulation.”
So clearly the counter-economy whether it’s ideologically driven (and probably by and large it isn’t) is still a big factor in the world today. Now how effective have all of these efforts been to undermine the state? In a sense not very. Especially insofar as the state not only stands in the sense that the member of the government still have rulership over us all (supposedly) but especially insofar as the ideas that hold up the state are still seen as legitimate are still around. One of the biggest things for me and I think for Konkin was the demystification of the state,
“Some intellectuals, holding truth as their highest value (as did earlier dissenting theologians and clerics), do work at clarifying rather than mystifying, but they are dismissed or reviled and kept away from State and foundation-controlled income. Thus is the phenomenon of dissidence and revisionism created; and thus is the attitude of anti-intellectualism generated among the populace who suspect or incompletely understand the function of the Court Intellectual.” (NLM)
Therefore I think if we are to raise the awareness of the people in today’s state-controlled society we need to certainly use education as a means of bringing counter-economics to more of a forefront in society. This will help build the counter-economy and the mindset in people’s head that not only is a better world possible but that people are doing it and that it’s not wrong to oppose the system or do some of these things.
So in order to build the use of counter-economics we as anarchists must reach out to those who need the alternatives the most. Alternative ways of doing medicine, alternative ways of organizing (more egalitarian, cooperative, independent, etc.), alternative ways of dealing with money, security, and more. The more people we can help out and spread the word with the better we as agorists or just anarchists in general can do. And agorism certainly has it’s place in trying to rally around other common people just trying to scratch by.
By getting these people, informing them of what’s going on and how they can best avoid being punished for disobeying the state and more we can help speed along the struggle against oppression, not just limited to the state of course.
Agorist Class Theory
Having a class theory of course doesn’t make you necessarily left or radical in of itself it needs to have some substance to it that’d make it either. First, let’s see where Marxists and agorists agree:
“Agorism and Marxism agree on the following premise: human society can be divided into at least two classes; one class is characterized by its control of the State and its extraction of un-earned wealth from the other class. Furthermore, agorists and Marxists will often point to the same people as members of the overclass and underclass,especially agreeing on what each considers the most blatant cases. The differences arise as one moves to the middle of the social pyramid.
“Agorists and Marxists perceive a class struggle which must continue until a climactic event which will resolve the conflict. Both sides perceive select groups which will lead the victims against their oppressors. The Marxists call these groups of high class consciousness ‘vanguards’ and then extract even more aware elements designated ‘elites of the vanguard.’ Agorists perceive a spectrum of consciousness amongst the victims as well, and also perceive the most aware elements as the first recruits for the revolutionary cadre. With the exception of ‘intellectuals,’ the Marxists and agorists sharply disagree on who these most progressive elements are.” (Agorist Class Theory)
Now having a class theory was used before Marx by people like Comte, Dunoyer, etc. so certainly Marx or other people on the left have no monopoly on class theories and it all depends on how correct it is either way of course But what are the most progressive elements to the Marxist?
To the Marxist they are are the bosses, the capitalists the ones that oppress the workers and use the state (Which can also be the oppressors) to further oppress the workers, consumers and the proletariat, etc. The agorists believe that in a state-capotalist society this is (for the most part) a pretty spot on observation. The capitalist accrues monopoly privileges from the state and uses them to artificially limit the workers choices subjugating them to jobs they may not want. This helps perpetuate a sort of wage-slavery that is highly reliant on the fact that the state exists and most agorists to my knowledge believe that once the state was abolished most of these privileges would go away. For the agorist then, while the capitalist is certainly a factor, they see the see as more of a factor in the relation because as history tells us it was the king who gave grants to the leading merchant class and usually it was not the merchant doling out privileges to the king.
The agorist then opposes the capitalist and consequently the capitalist class largely how it stands now and does not believe anything like it would exist in a truly freed market.
The two parts where Marxist theories fail is that it does not account for entrepreneurial activity,
“The entrepreneurial problem is unsolvable for Marxism, because Marx failed to recognize the economic category. The best Marxists can do is lump them with new, perhaps mutated, capitalist forms. But if they are to fit the old class system, they arepetit bourgeois, the very group that is to either collapse into proletarians or rise into the monopoly capitalist category. Small business shouldnot increase in the ‘advanced, decadent stages of capitalism.”
And the idea of a peaceful black market existing,
““This class unity is not that of a workers’ class (though workers are heavily involved) nor of a capitalist class (though capitalists are involved) nor even of a ruling class — this class is based on the
commonality ofrisk, arising from a common source (the State). And risk isnot proletarian (or particularly capitalist); it is purely entrepreneurial.
“Again, to make it clear, if the ‘entrepreneuriat’ are tossed into the capitalist class, then the Marxist must face the contradiction of ‘capitalists’ at war with the capitalist-controlled State.”
In other words, Marxist class theory misses too many important parts of what makes an economy up (the black market, the entrepreneurs and active collusion between apparently opposing classes according to Marx). But what is offered instead of that? SEK III wrote,
“The pure statist subclass includes all political officeholders, police, military, civil service, grantholders and subsidy receivers. There is a special subclass of the pure statists who not only accept plunder and enforce or maintain the machinery of the State but actually direct and control it. In ‘socialist’ countries, these are the top officeholders of the governing political party who usually (though not always) have top government offices. In the ‘capitalist’ countries, these super- statists seldom appear in government positions, preferring to control directly the wealth of their state-interfaced corporations, usually banks, energy monopolists and army suppliers. Here we find the Power Elite, Higher Circles, Invisible Government,Ruling Class and Insider Conspiracy that other ideological
groupings have detected and identified…”
And to further explain the spectrum SEK III wrote,
“Agorist class theory has the best of both positions: a sharp class line and a graduated spectrum. Individuals are complex and confused. An individual may commit some Counter-Economic acts and some statist ones; nonetheless, each act is either Counter-Economic or statist. People (and groups of people) can be classified along a spectrum as to the predominance of agorism over statism. Yet at each given moment, one can view an action, judge it immediately, and take concrete counter-action or supportive action, if desired.”
Thus we can see the agorist class theory takes a much more nuanced position with individuals then the marxist does. One is not confined to their class so tightly, they can engage in different actions and choose to aid the state, the ruling class, etc. if they wish to or they can follow the anarchist/libertarian logic and go against the state and use counter-economics. What about the people who are in the middle? In that they do some state supporting and some black market supporting? What does Konkin write of them?
He writes,
“To the statists, they are the victims, the herds of cattle to be slaughtered and sheep to be sheared. To the Agorists, they are the external marketplace, to receive nearly everything in trade — but trust.
“And some day they shall either take control of their lives and polarize one way or the other, or fail to do so and shall stagnate in the statist swamp or be borne away on the winds of revolutionary change.”
So it seems that even those who are in between with their actions need not be left out either. It then seems clear to me that the agorist class theory leaves agorism and the practice of the philosophy of agorism through counter-economics possible to anyone of any class so long as their actions go towards more work in the black market than the state-supported one. And even if they do more state-supported work or just do more in general to support the state then oppose it that doesn’t mean they can’t get out of that position.
And so the question remains: What makes this class theory so radical and left? Well for one it’s radical for it’s consistency in keeping in mind the nuances of human behavior and relations in way that the Marxist analysis could not. It’s radical for its unashamed bashing of state-supporting activities that need not happen and that are instead chosen by the individual in question. And finally, it’s radical for the way it clarifies the relations between the capitalist class and the ruling class in general in ways that the Marxist class theory did not. Instead of the capitalist class being the ruling class itself, the ruling class is instead made up largely of state officials and those who benefit the most from those officials being in place. This allows not only for a bigger range of players to be counted but also a more clear picture of what goes on.
But what makes it left? Well the acknowledgement of the capitalists having a common interest that currently opposes the workers is one thing. The second, that the capitalism of the day and some of the features that capitalism must feature may not or are definitely not legitimate. One last thing to note on the left side of things is the agreements in Marxist theory that are mentioned above as well as a preference of cooperative and self-managed work over top-down hierarchies in the workplace so that the current state and capitalist class can be ousted.
Explicitly Non/a/Counter-Political Means
For starters, I’m unsure of what to call it exactly. If by political we mean “within the current system of politics” then agorism is largely not it, apathetic to it (though only within the context of using it for positive social change) and want to set up institutions and organizations that run counter to it. So I suppose any three of these things would fit the bill really. But why any of this stuff? I myself have written tons of things on why voting isn’t for anarchists and you can find that here and here. I’ve also done an approximately 10 part video series on Youtube on the morality and practicality of voting. So that’s plenty of info on why voting doesn’t work and plenty of work that I link to that would reinforce my position.
But why does the agorist specifically take this stance?
One of the main reasons is that as SEK III said in NLM that “partyarchy” (anarchists who support the party system) are against the concept of liberation itself,
“The State’s Higher Circles were not about to yield their plunder and restore property to their victims at the first sign of opposition. The first counter- attack came from anti-principles already planted by the corrupt Intellectual Caste: Defeatism, Retreatism, Minarchy, Collaborationism, Gradualism, Monocentris and Reformism – including accepting State office to “improve” Statism! All of these anti-principles (deviations, heresies, self-destructive contradictory tenets, etc.) will be dealt with later. Worst of all is Partyarchy, the anti-concept of pursuing libertarian ends through statist means, especially political parties.”
For Konkin trying to get any sort of freedoms from the state, that organization that restricts our freedoms to begin with, is a fools game and one that should not be tried. SEK III commented on the buying out of the LP, how little change it had made over the time that it formed and of course it’s just plainly inconsistent to most agorists to use the political system. And instead of using the political system of course agorists will use counter-economics.
Now what effect does this have on the struggle? It means less time spent begging politicians for change or trying to use the system for our own good when we have no real good reason too. A lot of the other agorist reasons for not using politics I believe can be summed up in the blog posts and video series I’ve already linked here so I recommend checking those out if you’re still curious about it.
Other than that, there’s not much to it, voting as an anarchist is not only naive but also inconsistent with principles and what it means to be an anarchist at some levels to the agorist. It’s not only impractical but some agorists also consider the use of the political system to impose the libertarian idea of the world to be immoral.
Final thoughts
I think the biggest things that agorism gives us if nothing else is:
1. A new look at dual power and a way to get an-caps and other more Rothbardian leaning types towards being critical of different kinds of power besides state power.
2. An interesting, radically left class theory that has a good amount of consistency to it, especially compared to the Marxist brand.
3. And finally the insight that politics is not the right place to be for anarchists just as a matter of principle. For just like begging the bosses for better wages, etc. is not the ideal neither is begging the politicians for less whippings or wars, etc.
We must make our destiny possible through as much of our own and our fellow anarchists efforts as possible and as far as this idea goes I think agorism helps us get there. I also think it helps get an-caps and other more right-wing people further left as a sort of transition into perhaps more complex and diverse theories. You could counter after all, that you can find the three main things elsewhere, that dual power does counter-economics better, that there are better and more comprehensive class theories even further left than agorism would dare to go and that finally anti-political sentiments can be found among other people besides agorists as well even if the whole philosophy isn’t explicitly so.
I’d say to those things that while agorisms idea of counter-economics and dual power are similar they certainly have different emphasises and writers that advocate these strategies and so there are certainly differences to be appreciated at least. Secondly, although there may be other class theories I do believe that the nuance that agorist class theory makes as well as the correct influences from Marxist theories, etc. makes for a good synthesis and at the least a great start in a progression of ideas. And lastly there aren’t many ideas in anarchism that are explicitly anti-political except perhaps voluntaryism but even that has seen some cracks in of it as late while agorism has never seem to have such a problem.
2:41 pm
Mere Anarchy: Can A Society Without Government Be Better Run Than What We Have Now? + Agorism http://www.makeahistory.com/index.php/recent-news/427-mere-anarchy
2:31 am
I’m primarily familiar with agorism as a tactic, and think it’s useful in a non-capitalist context. Some major aspects of the class theory don’t ring true for me (and many other working poor people, I suspect), though. In particular, this:
The capitalist class are ‘those who benefit the most from those officials being in place’. While true that small business owners don’t benefit from statism in the same way that corporate CEOs do (and are actually often harmed by it), they’re still privileged wrt their employees; and this privilege is derived from statism.
Politicians implement policies and cops enforce them; but the owning classes (bosses, bankers, & lords) are those who issue the commands in the first place. They’re the ones pulling the strings.
Because the bulk of wage workers spend most of their waking hours in workplaces that resemble mini-dictatorships, most of the instances of direct coercion that people experience are with this latter group – bosses can dictate humiliating minutiae such as what clothing you wear, when you’re allowed to go change your tampon, when and about what topics you can talk to co-workers, when you’re allowed to stop for a drink of water, etc.
Of course, the state is every bit as odious as market anarchists say it is; but most people primarily experience state oppression wrt its enforcement of capitalists’ demands. It isn’t as though a bunch of meanies form states and then come up with this spiffy capitalism idea – historically, states arose because of pre-existing hierarchies & unequal distribution of resources/power; and they exist solely to reinforce this dynamic. This is why I can’t connect with critiques that cast the state as the ‘primary villain’.
9:49 pm
“ The capitalist class are ’those who benefit the most from those officials being in place’.
While true that small business owners don’t benefit from statism in the same way that corporate CEOs do (and are actually often harmed by it), they’re still privileged wrt their employees; and this privilege is derived from statism.”I think if you had written what I wrote you would have known that I made this clear or that at least this was the agorist approach to the question as well. If I did not I apologize.
“Politicians implement policies and cops enforce them; but the owning classes (bosses, bankers, & lords) are those who issue the commands in the first place. They’re the ones pulling the strings. ”
To a degree this is correct but to a degree that lawmakers in congress make the laws which help benefit the capitalist class who in turn may have to pull some strings themselves or bribe the politicans to get things their way. It’s mutually reciprocal for myself as an agorist so I’d say their both pulling the strings.
“Of course, the state is every bit as odious as market anarchists say it is; but most people primarily experience state oppression wrt its enforcement of capitalists’ demands. It isn’t as though a bunch of meanies form states and then come up with this spiffy capitalism idea – historically, states arose because of pre-existing hierarchies & unequal distribution of resources/power; and they exist solely to reinforce this dynamic. This is why I can’t connect with critiques that cast the state as the ‘primary villain’.”
Well to a certain extent this is certainly true and I won’t deny that truth. Namely. that inequality in social relations can more likely lead to states, etc. Whether capitalism (and it’s not clear what you mean by that term either way so I can’t judge too much right now) came before or after the state is irrelevant to the idea that the state largely backs currently-existing capitalism (the economy the US has now) and that they both work together with many other ideas to reinforce oppression. The agorists as a left-libertarian and a thick one does not deny this o at least should not.
7:14 pm
I was listening to a radio show, a comedy show actually, by British comedian Ricky Gervais, who said that he did not even know about the existence of class until he went to university, and discovered this whole group of people who talked differently from the way he talked, talked in a way he had never heard before. He knew then that he was not one of them, and that they ran Britain.
Of course, any group can be divided into logical classes along any kind of lines. Those making over $30k/yr vs. those making less, those over 6′ tall, those under 6′ tall, etc.. These are merely arbitrary distinctions — and this is what “agorist class theory” offers us, by dividing actions into those which are “statist” and those which are “agorist”.
Marx, however, was concerned with ontologically existing social groups — groups which are factually, practically, politically united by common economic interests. I.e., with the actually existing people who talk differently, and who — one comes to learn, after one has grown out of the socially/historically ignorant adolescence that makes possible “agorism”– control the actual society in which we live.
These people can recognize one another, and DO recognize one another, and unite to support their mutual interests, as against those of the unpropertied majority. This is no arbitrary distinction, but an observation of social structure. I.e., it has actual empirical content, unlike “agorist class theory,” which merely divides people into logical categories.
11:44 pm
“These are merely arbitrary distinctions — and this is what “agorist class theory” offers us, by dividing actions into those which are “statist” and those which are “agorist”.”
The particular actions one does generally reveals where ones preferences and allies may be found and subsequently what class they are in. Furthermore you’ve not offered any substantial reason why this is the case, merely asserted it is such.
“Marx, however, was concerned with ontologically existing social groups — groups which are factually, practically, politically united by common economic interests. I.e., with the actually existing people who talk differently, and who — one comes to learn, after one has grown out of the socially/historically ignorant adolescence that makes possible “agorism”– control the actual society in which we live.”
It’s my opinion that the PDF I linked about the agorist class theory proves such ideas wrong from the get go. Marx failed to realize that there were multiple ways of looking at class and there are distincton to be made for those who create products for certain reasons such as liberation and not everyone can be labeled bourgeoisie or petty bourgeois either.
“These people can recognize one another, and DO recognize one another, and unite to support their mutual interests, as against those of the unpropertied majority. This is no arbitrary distinction, but an observation of social structure. I.e., it has actual empirical content, unlike “agorist class theory,” which merely divides people into logical categories.”
Actually the capitalist class and class of people making laws, etc. typically recognize each other as well as evident by things like Joseph Stromberg’s “The Role of Monopoly Capitalism in the American Empire” and other readings such as Roy A. Childs “Big Business and the Rise of American Statism” and there’s more where that comes from.
1:53 pm
Some formulations of Marxist class analysis may be rather schematic and oversimplified, but I think you are fooling yourself if you think you have identified something Marx overlooked. He was very capable of subtlety, even if there was no room for it in The Communist Manifesto. Maybe you just didn’t read everything he wrote? Yet it’s also true that Marx’s work cannot be considered any kind of complete analysis of all class dynamics — but this is more than could be asked from any individual’s oeuvre, and it would not be honest to portray it as intending to be complete in that way.
The important thing is the approach itself, or rather the difference between approaches. Marx looked at concrete political interest groups and how they formed through the gradual dissolution of feudal property. Not only was his analysis incomplete in his day, but it certainly did not predict every development in political economy in the last century and a half. Yet the response to this should be to build upon what was correct, and not issue polemics that inevitably amount to attacks on a sloganized, misrepresented straw man.
(If you don’t like Marx — and really, let’s admit that Marx is difficult to read — try Thorstein Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class, or for a layman’s summary of empirical sociological research on class structures in the United States, Vance Packard’s The Status Seekers. Just one feature of ontological class structure, so you can get a grip on what it is: humans will mate within their social class, and within far tighter status bounds than Marx wrote about. When there is an exception to this rule, it is usually considered a failure from the one side (from family, peers, etc.), and often a success from the other; or else it is rich men poaching the more beautiful women out of the lower classes — considered more a failure of ethics than of status.)
What “agorist class theory” does, however, is throw all that out — and not only throw out Marx, but throw out as Marxist even what we can observe today about the current social class structure of globalized capitalism — and in a complete misunderstanding of what “social class” even is, talk about class as if it can mean any logical category, as if we were talking about classes in mathematics. Agorist “classes” very simply do not derive from any observation about social groupings and exclusions, and you will be hard-pressed to find any such observations anywhere in agorist literature. The dearth is staggering: “agorist class theory” is anti-empirical, as is agorism itself, as indeed are agorists themselves. And this, quite frankly, is a deficiency of adolescence — of having acquired the analytic ability to apply logical rules, without having acquired the information to apply rules to. More than that, it’s a desire to discover that final and complete answer, to actually *sate* the curiosity of ignorance with an impossibly definitive conclusion — which is, perhaps, all for the better… until you trick yourself into thinking you’ve found one.
I’ve been there.
Luckily, in my vulnerability, I didn’t acquire any mind-virus that tricked me into rejecting input from others, and through such input I was able to grow out of this phase relatively quickly. Others are not so lucky, and among ideologists just as much as religionists, there is an extremely disturbing tendency to vilify and reject entire sources of information.
Agorism, or anyway the political aspect of agorism (effectively, “libertarianism”), is an a priori theory of economic justice that requires no concrete understanding of history or of current society or of anthropology to believe and support. In fact, the more that one knows about these things, the less one is capable of being taken by a priori political theories at all — and ultimately, this is the reason why agorists will come up with so many reasons to reject authors without reading their works, and why they hate Marx so.
For a book on a priori political theories, I recommend Robert Anton Wilson’s “Natural Law.” You can download it here: http://www.libmansworld.com/pdf/wilson_natural.pdf R.A.W. also wrote a shorter article, from which I will quote: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Robert_Anton_Wilson__Left_and_Right__A_Non-Euclidean_Perspective.html
“Actually, it was once easy to classify me in simple Euclidean topology. To paraphrase a recent article by the brilliant Michael Hoy [Critique #19/ 20], I had a Correct Answer Machine installed in my brain when I was quite young. It was a right-wing Correct Answer Machine in general and Roman Catholic in particular. It was installed by nuns who were very good at creating such machines and implanting them in helpless children. By the time I got out of grammar school, in 1945, I had the Correct Answer for everything, and it was the Correct Answer that you will nowadays still hear from, say, William Buckley, Jr.”When I moved on to Brooklyn Technical High School, I encountered many bright, likable kids who were not Catholics and not at all right-wing in any respect. They naturally angered me at first. (That is the function of Correct Answer Machines: to make you have an adrenaline rush, instead of a new thought, when confronted with different opinions.) But these bright, non-Catholic kids — Protestants, Jews, agnostics, even atheists — fascinated me in some ways. The result was that I started reading all the authors the nuns had warned me against — especially Darwin, Tom Paine, Ingersoll, Mencken and Nietzsche.”I found myself floating in a void of incertitude, a sensation that was unfamiliar and therefore uncomfortable. I retreated back to robotism by electing to install a new Correct Answer Machine in my brain. This happened to be a Trotskyist Correct Answer Machine, provided by the International Socialist Youth Party. I picked this Machine, I think, because the alternative Correct Answer Machines then available were less “Papist” (authoritarian) and therefore less comfortable to my adolescent mind, still bent out of shape by the good nuns.”
I quote this for its illustration of the Correct Answer Machine. Another article on this site talks about “propertarian absolutism” and yet another talks about absolutism in the “non-aggression principle.” The reason is that the a priori theory of the libertarian/agorist is just the same thing that R.A.W. calls a Correct Answer Machine. It allows the individual to say exactly what is right and what is wrong in any situation, without hesitation or thought, merely through the formulaic application of a few simple rules.
Another RAW quote, this one from the aforementioned book, the last chapter of which is available in HTML here: http://www.whale.to/b/wilson_law.html
“These ideas can be made more concrete with a parable, which I borrow from John Fowles’s wonderful novel, The Magus.
“Conchis, the principle character in the novel, finds himself Mayor of his home town in Greece when the Nazi occupation begins. One day, three Communist partisans who recently killed some German soldiers are caught. The Nazi commandant gives Conchis, as Mayor, a choice — either Conchis will execute the three partisans himself to set an example of loyalty to the new regime, or the Nazis will execute every male in the town.
“Should Conchis act as a collaborator with the Nazis and take on himself the direct guilt of killing three men? Or should he refuse and, by default, be responsible for the killing of over 300 men?
“I often use this moral riddle to determine the degree to which people are hypnotized by Ideology. The totally hypnotized, of course, have an answer at once; they know beyond doubt what is correct, because they have memorized the Rule Book. It doesn’t matter whose Rule Book they rely on — Ayn Rand’s or Joan Baez’s or the Pope’s or Lenin’s or Elephant Doody Comix — the hypnosis is indicated by lack of pause for thought, feeling and evaluation. The response is immediate because mechanical. Those who are not totally hypnotized — those who have some awareness of concrete events of sensory space-time, outside their heads — find the problem terrible and terrifying and admit they don’t know any “correct” answer.
“I don’t know the “correct” answer either, and I doubt that there is one. The universe may not contain “right” and “wrong” answers to everything just because Ideologists want to have “right” and “wrong” answers in all cases, anymore than it provides hot and cold running water before humans start tinkering with it. I feel sure that, for those awakened from hypnosis, every hour of every day presents choices that are just as puzzling (although fortunately not as monstrous) as this parable. That is why it appears a terrible burden to be aware of who you are, where you are, and what is going on around you, and why most people would prefer to retreat into Ideology, abstraction, myth and self-hypnosis.”
8:46 pm
“Some formulations of Marxist class analysis may be rather schematic and oversimplified, but I think you are fooling yourself if you think you have identified something Marx overlooked. He was very capable of subtlety, even if there was no room for it in The Communist Manifesto. Maybe you just didn’t read everything he wrote?”
It’s not about what I’ve read but what the people who wrote the Agorist Theory have read because ‘m relying on their knowledge not my own. In truth, I’ve only read some of Marx’s manifesto.
The rest of your post is (again) just assertions without backing and a bunch of quotes from RAW without much of a *good* explanation of how this even vaguely criticizes agorism as a philosophy or strategy.
1:47 am
RAW’s critiques *are* leveled against Marxists (specifically, Trotskyists). But it’s not true that “everyone has their prophets and scriptures” — on the contrary — without being a “Marxist”, it’s possible to see Marx for what he was — a writer, with great social insight, and one of the most influential thinkers of his century. To me, there are no prophets and no scriptures — only authors and texts. I try to learn from any of them what they have to teach.
You write: “It’s not about what I’ve read but what the people who wrote the Agorist Theory have read because ‘m relying on their knowledge not my own. In truth, I’ve only read some of Marx’s manifesto.”
From someone who has read several complete books by Marx, and several dozen books by Marxists, let me assure you — the agorists have no idea what they are talking about, when they talk about Marx.
I certainly agree I haven’t proven everything I’ve asserted. Sorry, but besides the basic impossibility of that, it’s not something I’m willing to do for free on behalf of random internet strangers. However, I’ve given you something to learn from, a place to start, if you so choose…
3:25 am
“RAW’s critiques *are* leveled against Marxists (specifically, Trotskyists). But it’s not true that “everyone has their prophets and scriptures” — on the contrary — without being a “Marxist”, it’s possible to see Marx for what he was — a writer, with great social insight, and one of the most influential thinkers of his century. ”Nonsense, you don’t have to be a Marxist to appreciate things Marx said or Marxi did, that’s complete rubbish. ”From someone who has read several complete books by Marx, and several dozen books by Marxists, let me assure you — the agorists have no idea what they are talking about, when they talk about Marx.That’s cool I guess…doesn’t prove much though.”I certainly agree I haven’t proven everything I’ve asserted. Sorry, but besides the basic impossibility of that, it’s not something I’m willing to do for free on behalf of random internet strangers. ”Well if it wasn’t worth it to prove things and you apparently believe it’s impossible within this context I’m unsure what was the point of this.
3:25 am
“RAW’s critiques *are* leveled against Marxists (specifically, Trotskyists). But it’s not true that “everyone has their prophets and scriptures” — on the contrary — without being a “Marxist”, it’s possible to see Marx for what he was — a writer, with great social insight, and one of the most influential thinkers of his century. ”Nonsense, you don’t have to be a Marxist to appreciate things Marx said or Marxi did, that’s complete rubbish. ”From someone who has read several complete books by Marx, and several dozen books by Marxists, let me assure you — the agorists have no idea what they are talking about, when they talk about Marx.That’s cool I guess…doesn’t prove much though.”I certainly agree I haven’t proven everything I’ve asserted. Sorry, but besides the basic impossibility of that, it’s not something I’m willing to do for free on behalf of random internet strangers. ”Well if it wasn’t worth it to prove things and you apparently believe it’s impossible within this context I’m unsure what was the point of this.
12:56 pm
You write: “Nonsense, you don’t have to be a Marxist to appreciate things Marx said or Marxi did”
This is your failed reading comprehension. What I wrote was: “without being a “Marxist”, it’s possible to see Marx for what he was”. Read it again, please. (I mean read the whole paragraph — because by misreading that line, you’ve surely missed the entire point.)
Regarding proving things on internet discussion boards — sorry, but you can’t achieve a correct understanding of history in this context. You can only make certain a priori, oversimplified, deductive arguments.
This is in part what I mean when I say agorists are anti-empiricist. You don’t have the attitude to go and find out if what I’m saying is true or not; instead, you feel like you can reject it entirely because it does not contain an internal demonstration of its own truth.
But only a priori, non-empirical arguments can ever contain an internal demonstration of their own truths.
There is not very much that is true in that way. We’re not talking about math here.
No political theory can have much value that does not depend for its understanding on a greater knowledge of history and society than can be produced in a single web forum post.
6:55 pm
In response to the failed reading comprehension:
Yes I misread you…for whatever reason even though I read it over *at least* twice to make sure I wasn’t…so sorry about that.
“Regarding proving things on internet discussion boards — sorry, but you can’t achieve a correct understanding of history in this context. You can only make certain a priori, oversimplified, deductive arguments.”
Then why are you bothering?
“This is in part what I mean when I say agorists are anti-empiricist. You don’t have the attitude to go and find out if what I’m saying is true or not; instead, you feel like you can reject it entirely because it does not contain an internal demonstration of its own truth. ”
Of course you miss the whole fact that Wally Conger, myself and others who support agorism do make empircal approaches and this was one of the big approaches by Konkin himself. By rejecting your ” say so” attitude I’m more rejecting you being right merely on the basis that you think you are and not much else. I’ve heard many of the anti-agorist arguments and I’ve read their counter-arguments and I remain unimpressed with theirs as much as I am yours.
Also, just assuming I haven’t done the research just because I reject your arguments is arrogant to say the least.
3:53 pm
My understanding of Marx comes from reading a good deal Marx’s work, and reading related works by Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm, Foucault, Deleuze, Hardt & Negri, Zizek, Bauman, David Harvey, etc.. You admit to having not even read The Communist Manifesto. So I’m not just “assuming” you haven’t done the research: (1) I can tell — it’s actually glaringly obvious; (2) you admitted as much.
I’m really not asking you to take anything on my word though. If anything, I’d like to ask you to forget your ideology and investigate matters for yourself. But it seems you’re quite closed off to any new input…
Anyway, your contention that “agorist class theory does take the right cues from Marx and leaves the wrong ones behind, there’s not much denying this since I’ve read the paper itself at least twice or three times” — coming from someone who is admittedly unfamiliar with Marx — is just ridiculous. Honestly, ask yourself, how would you know? In fact, not only does it not take “cues,” it completely lacks the consciousness created by understanding Marx, and consistently represents Marx falsely, superficially interpreted within the limited bounds of its own ahistorical, a priori thought-system.
As someone familiar with both Marxism and Agorism (and, as I said, NOT a partisan of Marx), you probably actually _should_ take me at my word here — I am giving you good information. Agorists routinely misrepresent (and do not have the level of consciousness necessary even to understand) the basic theories of Marx. They cannot *intelligently* critique Marx (although this can certainly be done by others: Marx is full of flaws and holes), because they only ever address a sloganized straw man. That’s just a fact that I’m in a position to know and you aren’t, because I’ve read the relevant works and you haven’t. There is no path by which I can convince you of these facts, because you aren’t in a position to know them! However, you should still at least realize that you’re also not in a position to know that I’m wrong. You’re as ignorant of Marx as I am of — for example — Hinduism. But you won’t hear me arguing about Vishnu!
But you _don’t_ have to take me at my word. All you have to do is read Marx’s work, or even just read about it (from sympathetic sources; e.g., David Harvey), to verify what I say…
The fact that you don’t bother illustrates exactly how agorism is able to maintain this false critique of Marx.
9:38 pm
“Honestly, ask yourself, how would you know? ”
Because the people who wrote it did? And quoted Marx?
I only argued against Marxism insofar as it was displayed in the Agorist Class Theory by people who HAVE read it, it was quoted and demolished. If we disagree then we disagree.
“The fact that you don’t bother illustrates exactly how agorism is able to maintain this false critique of Marx.”
Or perhaps it shows that I don’t really have Marx on my reading list nor am I going to read him on command.
Again, your posts are just based on say so for the most part and I remain unimpresed.
9:44 pm
Also consider this the end of the conversation since I still don’t buy your say-so attitude and I’ve admitted ignorance past what they talk about in agorist class theory so we might as well stop going at something that isn’t getting any better. I apologize about being dogmatic and assure you I intend to read much of Marx at some point and see if I was incorrect. I also am interested in RAW…just not now. I’m very systematic in my reading list so that’s one of the big reasons I won’t read them now but it’s not out of ideological dogmatism.
Have a good one.
9:38 pm
“Honestly, ask yourself, how would you know? ”
Because the people who wrote it did? And quoted Marx?
I only argued against Marxism insofar as it was displayed in the Agorist Class Theory by people who HAVE read it, it was quoted and demolished. If we disagree then we disagree.
“The fact that you don’t bother illustrates exactly how agorism is able to maintain this false critique of Marx.”
Or perhaps it shows that I don’t really have Marx on my reading list nor am I going to read him on command.
Again, your posts are just based on say so for the most part and I remain unimpressed.
3:01 am
I like what that anonymous guy was posting, but I must say as well written as his comments were, he was making a couple straw men himself.
His dissection started from the premise that practicing agorism meant you were downloading a mental lock that couldn’t not help but prevent learning. It’s possible to develop knee jerk ways of thinking that both hard and benefit the individual. We could argue there may be need to drive full speed into a wall, but this doesn’t make the general guiding principle “don’t drive into walls” obsolete, it just means it is subject to the same forces everything else is, “it’s likely right when it’s not wrong”. There is such a thing as debasing yourself too much! I agree, their is a great temptation to turn our minds into yes/no answer protocols instead of thinking, but agorism, like anything else, is a set of ideas.
You are right, Nick can offer no substantial comment on marx, nor could I, and I wouldn’t blame SEKIII if his only understanding of Marx was skin deep, or based on hearsay from marxist enthusiasts. It’s irrelevant to the importance of agorism, you are merely debasing his comparison to marx. I have no idea if marx considers the state an important factor in his definition of capitalism, I have no idea what marx’s stance on entrepreneurship was either. Personally it doesn’t effect how I feel about counter economics or libertarian philosophy. I value the Non Aggression Principle but if killing three enemies would save the lives of 300 friends? I could break a conviction with proper cause. But being consistent with a philosophy like the NAP allows me to make snap decisions, and it is up to me to reprogram them if I deem it necessary. Personally I don’t think working for a boss=being taken advantage of. When people are buying things, they want to pay less, and when they sell, they want to be paid more, but the other person involved had the same goals, and either compromised, got their way, or didn’t. In either case, they went through the transaction, or they didn’t.
The boss man may be a mini dictatorship vexing your life but unlike the government, you can quite your job, you can work for yourself (the best the government will let you). I do not know if it was marx who initially decided bosses were vile, likewise I do not know his analyses on business owners, all i have to go on is my interactions with self proclaimed socialists. If you don’t like working for a boss, quite. You can’t “legally” quite the government. The boss may be closer, but you can’t leave the government.
The support of free markets can be bolstered by the idea that the free market cannot be destroyed, only detoured or driven underground. I don’t know if marx understood this, but his followers have not led me to believe they accounted for the black market when convincing themselves capitalism was not natural.
I have been forced out of a very good job a few times by legislation. This past time i was already setting the ground work for agorism locally. I network a lot for various goods and services, I trade for all sorts of things. Some might say I’m doing pretty well:) agorism helped plant ideas that I could take a million directions. It may have hampered me from researching opposing ideas, but it has not hampered me following it’s philosophies into new developments.