Looking for contributions + Agorists Anonymous

A simple 'no' would have sufficed. But then the opportunity to be a smart ass must have been too great.

You're pretty much spot on. It's taken from the Greek term 'marketplace'.

Edit: To your first question, an Agorist is a individual who advocates using counter economics to achieve Anarchy. This means basically starving the state to a point where it will either collapse or is too weak to be a threat while building the necessary infrastructure to enable a smooth transition from statism to Anarchy. Counter Economics is described as every peaceful action that is banned by and takes place outside the realms of the state, such as black market activity (drug dealing), money laundering and tax dodging. It's supposed to be a soft-propertarian evolution of Anarcho-Capitalism but I know of Agorists who are Mutualists and just plain market Anarchists.

I've got to remember that one.

Well, you're right in identifying that it is a whole lot of illegal activity. Agorists reject any participation in the state as compromising and counter productive, therefore it is far better to operate outside the realm of the state on the freed market. You could say a better term would be 'subversive illegality'. I'm not going to make the claim that it must be 'non-violent', as I'm not a pacifist and I feel that violence serves its purpose only in self defence. I will argue that any action must not be coercive and not necessarily from a natural rights position - as I'm not a big fan of natural rights - but more from a voluntaryist position.

That's a very interesting question. Basically the idea is for Agorists to themselves operate or encourage businesses or organisations that provide security and defence against coercive entities, such as organised crime protection rackets, and the state. Because this decreases the risk of operating in the counter economy, more people will find the incentive to shift their activities over from the state capitalist economy to the counter economy.

Now, applying this to a problem such as a coercive protection racket, Agorists may have trouble. But then the existence of that protection racket and the coercion they use to maintain the racket will cause those living under it to want protection from their aggressors. Traditionally they turn to the state to offer protection. But if an Agorist or other counter economist is able to offer these people security, cheaper and more efficiently than what the state would provide, than that racket would be crippled because its monetary support is no longer there. Things can go three ways from here, they can run, they can enter into a conflict with the Agorists and treat them as a 'rival gang invading their turf', or they can realise that using coercion is costing them money and instead try to compete with the Agorists. To be perfectly honest, I think that violence is the far more likely option, but that will see them enter into a conflict that is essentially the same a guerrilla conflict because the community would much prefer the Agorists over the violent gangsters. Or it could possibly end with the thugs going elsewhere as they would no longer be receiving payment for their violence, leaving their crime bosses in a similar situation to politicians when the states thugs are no longer willing to work. This is just one suggestion and I am by no means suggesting that it is the answer to the question. In fact it is also likely that there are a number of solutions depending on who is offering security to the community.

The idea behind combating the state on the other hands involves, like I said, lowering the risk to provide incentive for others to operate on the counter economy, removing more cash from the states coffers. Once the counter economy becomes prevalent enough, it doesn't matter how much the state knows about existing Agorists or counter economists, it is already at a point where it is to weak to effectively combat the viral tactic and can only try in vain to slow the process. This is a point where Agorists and counter economists can start openly working against the state, defending clients and others from state thugs. More or less the idea is to reach a point where government employers no longer bother going to work because they're not getting paid, essentially leaving politicians powerless and ignored while life goes on without them. Those employers can then take their skills to more productive areas.

The simple answer, however people want to be employed is up to them. If they want to work for a boss, then so be it. If they would prefer to enter a commune, fine. If they'd rather a co-op, I'm all for it. It would be inconsistent and hypocritical for me to dictate to people how they want to organise - and I value consistency.

I apologise for the long post.

I completely agree that the state maintains a capitalist system that grants a few privilege while it screws the rest out of what they have worked for. However I am not proposing that solely property holders work outside on the freed market against the state. You don't necessarily have to be a property holder to be a counter economist. If you want to look at it from a different perspective, you're just building alternative infrastructure that operates outside and against the influence of the state. There could be a farming commune that sells its produce to locals off the books and reinvest that money into tools, buildings and other commune infrastructure. All it boils down to is that you're building alternative infrastructure, it doesn't really matter how you do it -- for example I know of people that run illegal paint ball games for free, on the condition that all participants agree not to be stupid and bring their own equipment. The idea that people can profit from changing onto the counter economy is just an incentive meant to entice the politically apathetic and statists without ever having to engage in an argument with them to work against the state. More or less it'd be up to the individual how they wish to organise and up to the community on what form of property rights they use.

Well if you want me to take a market Anarchist approach to the situation in New Orleans after Kartrina, those 'property holders' had already fled New Orleans, abandoning their property. Those 'looters' were claiming abandoned property and if you want to get technical that is a result of the homesteading principle which means their actions were perfectly legitimate. The fact that the state defended abandoned property against people trying to survive just goes to show how rigid, oppressive and immoral the state is - not to mention they cause the disaster in the first place because of their negligence.

I didn't know you reserved the right to determine who is a real Anarchist and who isn't. Interesting.

I absolutely agree and I don't think that I have said anything to contradict what you have stated above.

Yes, there are currently thousands of people participating in the current Capitalist system - routinely working for multinationals, corporations and for the government themselves. But how many people in whatever country you are from perform a service or provide goods for cash in hand? I've read of American ghettos run entirely on the black market, as its inhabitants are discriminated against and more or less left for dead but the system. There were those who ran car dealerships from the back of their houses, a tailor who operated on two fronts; recording losses on his 'legitimate business' while operating a successful tailor's business for unrecorded cash payments. Nearly everyone out there has, does or will participate in this grey market activity, all it takes is further encouragement to make the practice more widespread. If people can make trades/transactions/work for more with little risk of being caught by the government, they'll do it regardless of whether they're an Anarchist or not, removing just a little bit more of the states tax income.

Now I am far from claiming that counter economics is to take the place of syndicalist direct action for example. Counter Economics will not be effective on its own, just as direct action will never destroy the state by itself and neither of the latter will succeed without methods of 'spreading the word' or educating people. I think it's a matter of supporting other strategies even though you might not actively participate in them yourself -- half the reason why I volunteered to make my proposal here. I respect a number of Libcom members, like learning about different forms of organisation that I may put into use if the need arises and much prefer Libcom to revleft - even though some have tried to insult me.

In practical terms, I agree to some extent. I wouldn't expect entirely new hospitals to be built from scratch, that would be impractical and I apologise if I have miscommunicated anything. I wouldn't be surprised though if disgruntled doctors and nurses fed up with pay, conditions and competition from foreign trained doctors working to set up a hospital inside an abandoned building or warehouse. I have no doubt that GP's, Nurses, care assistants and all manner of hospital staff would take over the operation of the hospital they are working in. However, that cannot happen until the hold of the state has been broken or the hospital staff will still depend on the government for payment and would probably face a violent crackdown for insubordination. What would likely happen with counter economics, is that enough incentive would cause individuals or groups of the hospital staff to provide their service 'off the books'. A group of GP's, for example, may work together to diagnose patients for some kind of payment and then direct them to a pharmacy willing to prescribe medication without either parties recording the visit or the transaction. It may require the doctors to make house calls, keeping the details confidential and eliminating some hassles associated with state owned and operated hospitals.

I wasn't questioning your intellect, so there's no need to throw around your credentials. You did come up with the original 'recipe joke'. The rest are just imitators.

Well, most Anarcho-Capitalists, with the exception of the vulgar, uncompromising, 'hard-propertarians' that for some reason support corporations are anti-capitalists as well. It's just that they use different terminology and choose a rather controversial word for their title. Lucky for me I'm not an Anarcho Capitalist, isn't it?

If you're as much the historian as you claim to be, you may be interested in a new translation of Proudhon's "Theory of Property" that will be available soon care of Shawn Wilbur. Apparently it challenges the common theory that Proudhon only supported simple possession. Also, considering the Mutualists were one of the first Anarchist groups and supported markets I'd be disinclined to agree with the blanket theory that, I think your generalisation is a bit off. Unless of course you're going to claim that Mutualists aren't Anarchists, but that would be going against at least 100 years of Anarchist history and the influence of Proudhon, the first to publicly use the term 'Anarchist'.

You're welcome.

Only if it's yellow. Anything else gives you herpes.

I'm simply arguing for a market that competes with the state capitalist system, providing a way for people to organise and work how they want, on their terms - as a free market would. I see the elegance in such a method in that you can simply co-opt the support of the state without ever having to engage in an argument. Statists would find themselves inadvertently working against the state they cheer for.

I'm not specifically supporting either, I'm simply supporting the individuals freedom to choose what's best for him. I realise that such a statement is going to make me more or less unwelcome here, but that is why (with one sole exception) I am only posting on this thread.

More or less, I propose 'starving the beast'. It cannot operate without the money that it steals from people so supporting, encouraging and enabling people to operate without having to pay taxes has the potential to cripple the state. That is in essence counter economics.

Unfortunately that's a result of our differing influences. I see the state as a parasite, unnaturally shaping the market to benefit itself and its friends. So either you directly benefit from the existence of the state, or you are a victim. Many bosses certainly benefit from the existence of the state, for example they may openly seek and receive subsidies, be protected by the law in disputes against their employees or other trade partners or acquiring limited liability. For that I'm happy to call them statists.
It's interesting that my concept of 'revolution' is similar to yours. Except we propose to make the state mean nothing by starving it of the funds it needs to operate.

Personally, I'd much rather face the brunt of a state crack down when it has been weakened to a point where I can resist that take it as when it is fighting fit.

I don't think any concept could be abolished totally, and using the word abolished assumes that one reserves the power to completely ban something other individuals may be interested in doing. I can understand how this logically follows on from your statement that the state is created because there are bosses. But even so, even if you were to succeed to a point where your method of organisation is the most dominant, you will never be able to totally get rid of wages. There will nearly always be proponents of a particular theory like nazism, fascism even Stalinist communism.

The latter is something assumed as inevitable in counter economics. State based currency is ridiculous, and is a topic where I agree with the American gold-bugs.

Actually, I'd dispute this claim that the series of food co-operates do not possess the ability to challenge a super market chain. It's basically competition. If the co-op can produce food fresher, cheaper, without the use of chemicals and/or hydroponically, than they have the potential to challenge the super market chain as there is more incentive for people to get involved. Add onto this the possibility that the co-op may trade on a counter economic currency (there have been ideas and musings about currencies that compete with the state's) and not only is the co-op black market and thus counter economic, but it is taking customers away from the super market chain whose produce is usually not of the best quality, covered in chemicals and not always fresh. The potential is there. Even though they may not be able to compete in coverage and size, the possibility is there in that they save its members money, aren't paying taxes to fund the state further and can do it better. A little development could see innovations to its organisation that allow to expand.

So he is only good insofar as he agreed with you, but otherwise he was a failure and not an Anarchist?

See, I would agree that Capitalism created that ghetto. Those ghettos are a result of coercive state influence and it would be a low blow to credit those ghettos to the free market in the same way that claiming communism fails because Stalinist Communism in Russia fell.

Those formal state sanctioned capitalist enterprises hate competition. Let's face it, most do. That is yet another reason why so many avowedly support the state. They compete for favours that mean they don't have to work as hard, in turn screwing the guy next door as he needs to work twice as hard to receive the same benefits. There is no of this state favouritism and influence in the black market. In is entirely free and is ultimately opposed to the influence of the state as they can earn more and expect a greater return without - despite the risk. The point is black markets don't have to be employer/employer run businesses. They can be what you want them to be, so long as they work and are productive.

Well are mortally opposed to a system that of institutionalised regulation and coercion that essentially screws people so that those in charge reap all the benefits. I don't know about you, but this pretty much fits the definition of 'capitalism'.

You'd have to ask an Anarcho-Capitalist, but I think it's mostly comes down to the fact that Murray Rothbard was an economist, hung out with Rand for a little too long (by that I mean at all) and didn't anticipate the controversy that using the word 'Capitalist' in his title would have, as you'd expect from an economist.

Well, Max Stirner and Proudhon didn't necessarily reject these precepts and they were historically Anarchists or gave birth to Anarchist ideologies. But to answer your question, it's more or less because I am radically opposed to the existence of the state, as Anarchists fundamentally Anarchists are, to such an extent that I am willing to work towards an society without government. I just disagree that a homogeneous, all-encompassing Anarcho-Communist society will be the final result. To be perfectly honest, I think it's more than likely that an society without government will be a kind of panarchy with both markets and communes, even small patches of area where people still seem willing to pay someone to govern them.

And if you want my background history, I originally started out as an Anarcho-Communist.

But if one enters into an agreement voluntarily, how can that be coercive? Yes, I do know of the arguments that state social forces may 'force' people to only choose between a set number of options, but that is not coercive as it is environmental and you cannot blame the other party for that particular effect.

Print money doesn't need an institutional authority and in fact such an institutional authority jeopardises the value of currency. Look at today's currencies. Most are no longer backed by a gold standard, meaning we are traded worthless paper which gains its value from the promise of government. Because more gets printed, inflation rises and that worthless paper becomes increasingly worthless. Unless backed by something valuable, print money is a useless tool of government. To be honest, I'd expect property rights to be up to the community. If you don't respect peoples property rights in a given community, I wouldn't expect them to have anything to do with you.

I've heard of people that forge government papers for immigrants, built fish farms in their basements to sell to their neighbours, provided 'drugs to your door in 30 minutes or they're free' delivery services, run unlicensed and untaxed paint ball games, trades people who deal in cash - are all these people operatives of gangs and the mafia? The Mafia and gangs are given the designation of 'red markets', it's a cutesy way of saying they use coercion. I don't necessarily think they exist without hierarchy, but the vast majority of counter economic trades are non-coercive, non-violent and don't require really require any authority. I think our major difference is the emphasis on hierarchy. I think it is permissible so long as one agrees to it voluntarily, you don't allow for it at all. I don't necessarily think that's a difference that could ever prevent us from working together, but it is a difference.

So you are comparing Stiner and Proudhon to the Unabomber?

By the way, I appreciate you taking the time to respond.