anarcho capitalism and agorism

Maybe you've had different experience with an-caps than myself, but in my experience the an-caps are far more concerned with the 'welfare freeloaders', the national debt (most accept the premise the state is for national defense), and social programs than than they are the war machine.

Seems like if the reason someone rejects taxes is to deny funding the military and the pentagon, they're far closer to the socialist end of libertarianism than the capitalist one to begin with.

Subverting the economy through a counter economy seems fine, but how does "agorism" relate to class struggle?

whatever for?

What's the man gotta do? Stop being white/Jewish? And how's the pension scheme in anarcho-land? Or do you want an 83-year old to start an alternative economy and run away from tax collectors and cops? Bit holier than thou, no? What do you do that makes you the arbiter of anarchishness?

It doesn't, as none other than Murray Rothbard(!) recognized when criticizing fellow "libertarian" Samuel Konkin, founder of agorism:

“Konkin’s entire theory speaks only to the interests and concerns of the marginal classes who are self-employed. The great bulk of the people are full-time wage workers; they are people with steady jobs. Konkinism has nothing whatsoever to say to these people. To adopt Konkin’s strategy, then, would on this ground alone, serve up a dead end for the libertarian movement. We cannot win if there is no possibility of speaking to the concerns of the great bulk of wage earners in this and other countries.”
—Murray Rothbard

Leaving aside the ultimate uselessness of Rothbard's own "libertarian" solutions to the concerns of wage workers, the entirety of agorism's revolutionary approach consists of trying to subvert the current order through a counter economy, by it expanding to the point where the "counter economy" will have subsumed the "real economy" and the state will collapse as the agorist horde expands due to a loss of faith in the state to guarantee the economic stability and profitability to be found in the "agora" which will be backed up by "private protection agencies" to deal with whatever anti-agora forces remain. This, seems to be the most common interpretation of an "agorist revolution" out there, such as there is.

The problem of course is that in the first place, much of the "real economy", is currently owned and controlled either directly by the state, or by private interests that currently have a fuck of a lot more interest in more or less preserving the status quo, than going on any sort of "agorist revolution" and are backed up by considerable armed violence in their support.

Considering this includes all or mostly all of the
infrastructures and structures, that allows any sort of technologically advanced economy to function (agricultural land, factories, hospitals, roads, mines...you get the point), it seems like a philosophy for non-starters, as any sort of political outlook that looks to be relying on a combo of using alternative currencies, the black and gray markets, and mass conversion to agorist ideas leading to a collapse of faith in the state seems about as utopian as you can get in this day. How exactly are the agorists going to buy their way around the state and those supporting the state? Sneak up on them with bitcoins? Any political outlook that claims to "revolutionary" but has no real plan for dislodging a ruling class other than a form consciousness-raising and idealism, and some marginal economic counter-measures that can't seize the whole of an economy and transform it...is not worthy of the name.

There's nothing at all in agorism about workers overcoming their alienation to seize, with all the force necessary to do so, the means of social production and reproduction. Agorism, much like the rest of the pseudo-libertarian tradition, adheres to the same woeful conceptions of "voluntaryism" and the "non-aggression principle" as the rest in their tradition. Needless to say, these principles as commonly interpreted do not usually allow for a perspective that favors forming unions, going on strike, protesting work conditions, kicking out your boss, sabotage, or any other forms of class struggle. Let alone communism.

Ok. Read any of this:

http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=247

...and then let me know what the hell any of that could be of interest to anyone with a half-way serious interest in, let alone commitment to, the ideals of libertarian communism as promoted here on this site.

Those 95 are so full of shit it's hilarious. The first three could as well be taken from any bourgie econ 101 course for example. Non-aggression bullshit my ass.

This one takes the cake (for me at least)

64. Markets are, in part, a process of voluntary rationing.

Just... no.

Edit: Actually there are a lot more, this kind of shit is what makes me want to smash my keyboard

22. The non-productive have always and will always try to live off the value created by the productive.
23. The productive will by right decide how much, if any, to allow it.

Oh dear.

There's so much wrong with this. How would a prof dropping the ball contribute to changing a social relation? Likewise, in what way would a candy dealer do?

By that logic drug dealers must, sorry for the sexist expression, have balls of steel. What is revolutionary in upholding exchange in commodities?

I'm not even saying I wouldn't touch those people without a twenty foot pole if I ever came across one, but those guys strike me as someone who's mentally stuck in the US of A in the 18th century where everyone had their little farm and whatnot. Petty bourgeois utopians, in short.

So let's keep in mind that iexist is a new poster, y'all.

The problem, I think, iexist, is that most us view our anarchism as a rejection of commodity relations. Our struggle then is against the state in as much the state protects the social relationship that is capitalism (and, of course, the state inevitably does this, it can't be otherwise).

So while you say, 'untaxed goods subvert the state' we say, untaxed goods are still within the framework of commodity relations. And, untaxed or black market, the whole notion of commodity production and sale is protected by the state's enforcement of private property, etc.

Does that maybe clear things up why we're coming at this from different angles?

Good post Chili. I'm assuming that, since the site is called libcom, posters have at least a rudimentary knowledge of communist positions but I always forget that we all started somewhere and well if I look back, I was some kind of meta-mumbo jumbo anarchist myself a year ago...

On drug dealing, yes motives count but not only. I'd say it's more about consequences, drugs are not a homogenous substance and it should be obvious you could contribute to screwing up a lot of people's life by pushing smack or similar. Simply saying "MAKE TOTAL DESTROY" doesn't account for anything in my opinion.

That's where chili's post cuts in, he highlights the role of state in relation to capital; I think you have to go a step further and point out that the state is a product of class contradictions and can thus not be separated from commodity production. (That's also our reason for smacktalking anarcho-capitalists when it comes to their conception of the state, they have a very idealist outlook on that)

Coming to Rothbard I think this line of thought is not really based on much. Sounds Lockean property theory - but as David Harvey, among others, rightly points out, adapting this kind of view totally contradicts the very basis of the wage relation. Corporations are as much a product of capitalism as your mom & pop store down the street, that's what the marketeers fail to see.

Not to mention all the liberal boycott and ethical consumption types.

Good post, too, R.

The thing is, I identify with iexist here. When folks come to anarchism, it takes some time to figure out their ideas. I think we're far better off as a movement (not just libcom.org) positively engaging with newcommers and not condemning them for exploring ideas which try to promote themselves as compatible with our politics.

I also think that coming of age politically at such a low point of class struggle has consequences. I mean, I remember being a teenager and wanting to do something. I personally got into a lot of crappy activisty stuff and, like iexist seems interested in, helped start a FNB. In the absence of available mass struggle it can seem like dropping out (in varying degrees from counter-economics to full-blown Crimethinc) is doing something to contribute to making a new world.

Plus (and I'm talking from personal experience), being an angsty teen where your main conception of the state is school it's easy to make the jump that the government is the main enemy as opposed to coming to the conclusion that "the state is a product of class contradictions and can thus not be separated from commodity production."

Anyway, if I have the time iexist, I do want to respond to your Chomsky comment. I also have a critique of him, but it's slightly different from yours.

Confession time:

I once thought about going FULL CRIMETHINC and live my life as a hobo intellectual

Then I became a communist.

Wanted to start a local FNB too, the main problem I see with that is it may come across as capitalizing on the social weakness of others for political purposes. But I guess that's for another thread...

I think starting out with FNB is a great way of being introduced to organizing. Although it's not overtly political, doing FNB forces you to do things that will be helpful in political organizing.

FNB is the Salvation Army without god, but might be a good place for a young rapskallion.

Exactly.