Agorism FAQ

Q: What is Agorism?

A: Essentially, Agorism asserts that the philosophical positions of libertarianism are best facilitated for progression, promotion, and application through the counter-economy - or the black and grey markets. By this way the goal of Agorism is the free growth of the entrepreneurial class and the redistribution of the ill-gotten gains of the parasitic class.

This makes Agorism action based, contrasting sharply with other libertarian ideologies that are merely thought based. A truly revolutionary philosophy, it subsists as a new Anarcho-Syndicalism for the 21st century.

Q: Why Agorism?

A: According to SEK3 in his New Libertarian Manifesto,

The basic principle which leads a libertarian from statism to his free society is the same which the founders of libertarianism used to discover the theory itself. That principle is consistency. Thus, the consistent application of the theory of libertarianism to every action the individual libertarian takes creates the libertarian society.

As we currently live under administrations perfectly content to see men die and suffer as long as the ruling class continues to dominate over the entrepreneurial one, the need for libertarian revolution appears evident, but to succeed, under the high standards noted by all Anarchists, libertarians must apply their principles to all aspects of life - including their strategies and tactics to overthrow the state.

To summarize, SEK3 put it best in the NLM when he said,

With a State tainting every act and befouling our minds with unearned guilt, it becomes extremely important to understand the social consequences of our acts. For example, if we fail to pay at tax and get away with it, who is hurt: us? The State? Innocents? Libertarian analysis shows us that the State is responsible for any damage to innocents it alleges the “selfish tax-evader” has incurred; and the “services” the State “provides” us are illusory. But even so, there must be more than lonely resistance cleverly concealed or “dropping out?” If a political party or revolutionary army is inappropriate and self-defeating for libertarian goals, what collective action works? The answer is agorism.

Q: Who started Agorism?

A: Philosophies generally don't possess any one individual “founder,” but rather they usually encompass a mixture of many different components. In the case of Agorism, however, though many different individuals have contributed to the Agorist mantra over the years, the first man to ever conceptualize that the philosophical tenants of Libertarianism are best expressed in the counter-economy was a man by the name of Samuel Edward Konkin III, the author of the New Libertarian Manifesto.

Q:Is Agorism a strategy or a philosophy?

A: To some extent, Agorism is a bit of both. Though Agorism was originally formulated as a strategy, it also serves as a slightly distinct philosophy from other libertarian groups.

For example, whereas some libertarians focus on economic progress through companies headed by individuals or collectives, as an alternative, agorists focus on a mode of production based upon individual entrepreneurs that may sometimes work in cooperatives, but exist, primarily, as self-managers. Desiring to replace the proletariat with an “entrepreneuriat,” agorists do possess a distinctive philosophy similar to that of most left libertarians.

At the same time, however, Agorism is primarily a strategy and though, like Anarcho-Syndicalism, it does possess some normative positions, for the most part, agorists are focused on achieving the libertarian society through tactical execution.

Q: So you guys are Anarchists?

A: From a substance point of view, yes, agorists must be Anarchists supportive of voluntary association, or rather they must reject any form of initiated aggression or violence - they must reject the violent and coercive state. As agorists largely support an economic system of individual cooperation and freedom, they are most should be considered Anarchists in the classical sense of the word.

From a semantics point of view, however, it has been expressed by philosophers, such as Robert LeFevre, that Anarchism is not the proper etymological reference for a libertarian, but rather libertarians must consider themselves Autarchists - maintaining a position of self-rule. Though this interpretation of Autarchism vs. Anarchism may be etymologically correct, however, from the layman point of view, and the general sentiment of most libertarian-anarchist/autarchists, Anarchism is a fine enough definition for libertarians to take, as it maintains a position of rejecting external authority on this earth.

Q: But I thought Anarchists were for chaos?

A: The association of Anarchism with chaos is a common misconception originating from negative propaganda launched against the thriving Anarchist movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The typical view of the bomb throwing Anarchist remains one of the greatest crimes in intellectual thought to this day.

In fact, it was the first self-proclaimed Anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who said "anarchy is order," in his Confessions of a Revolutionary - inspiring the famous Circle-A symbol.

Q: But aren't Anarchists just socialists?

A: In a greater sense, yes. Anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon were both Anarchists and socialists. Today, however, when one hears another refer to himself as a “socialist,” what the other person usually means is, “state-socialist.” Though the difference seems to be lost in translation between Anarchists, socialists, and outsiders, it remains an important one to distinguish.

As Ernest Lesigne, a French Anarchist of the 19th century, put it,

There are two Socialisms.

One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.

One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.

One is metaphysical, the other positive.

One is dogmatic, the other scientific.

One is emotional, the other reflective.

One is destructive, the other constructive.

Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.

One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.

The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of >and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association >like any other, generally managed worse than others.

The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.

One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.

One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.

Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.

The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns >evolutions into revolution.

The first has faith in a cataclysm.

The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.

Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.

One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.

The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.

The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.

The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.

The one wishes to expropriate everybody.

The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.

The first says: ‘Do as the government wishes.’

The second says: ‘Do as you wish yourself.’

The former threatens with despotism.

The latter promises liberty.

The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.

The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.

One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.

The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.

The first has confidence in social war.

The other believes only in the works of peace.

One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.

The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.

One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.

The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.

The first will fail; the other will succeed.

Both desire equality.

One by lowering heads that are too high.

The other by raising heads that are too low.

One sees equality under a common yoke.

The other will secure equality in complete liberty.

One is intolerant, the other tolerant.

One frightens, the other reassures.

The first wishes to instruct everybody.

The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.

The first wishes to support everybody.

The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.

One says:

The land to the State.

The mine to the State.

The tool to the State.

The product to the State.

The other says:

The land to the cultivator.

The mine to the miner.

The tool to the laborer.

The product to the producer.

There are only these two Socialisms.

One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.

One is already the past; the other is the future.

One will give place to the other.

Today each of us must choose for the one or the other of these two Socialisms, or else confess that he is not a Socialist.

For more on the differences between Anarchist socialists that would certainly connect with Agorism and state-socialists who resound the philosophy of Marx, see Benjamin Tucker's State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they differ and wherein they disagree.

Q: Are you like Anarcho-Capitalists then?

A: No. Agorism and anarcho-capitalism aren't the same. A good starting point in distinguishing agorism from anarcho-capitalism is interview with SEK3:

Q: What are the main differences between left-libertarianism/agorism and anarcho-capitalism?

SEK3 - There are several ways of looking at this, from a theoretical view, from a strategic view, with left jargon, with right terminology, etc., but it’s a fair question.

In theory, those calling themselves anarcho-capitalists (I believe Jarrett Wollstein, in his defection from Objectivism, coined the term back in early 1968) do not differ drastically from agorists; both claim to want anarchy (statelessness, and we pretty much agree on the definition of the State as a monopoly of legitimized coercion, borrowed from Rand and reinforced by Rothbard). But the moment we apply the ideology to the real world (as the Marxoids say, “Actually Existing Capitalism” [1]) we diverge on several points immediately.

First and foremost, agorists stress the Entrepreneur, see non-statist Capitalists (in the sense of holders of capital, not necessary ideologically aware) as relatively neutral drone-like non-innovators, and pro-statist Capitalists as the main Evil in the political realm[2]. Hence our favorable outlook toward “conspiracy theory” fans, even when we think they’re misled or confused. As for the Workers and Peasants, we find them an embarrassing relic from a previous Age at best and look forward to the day that they will die out [3] from lack of market demand (hence my phrase, deliberately tweaking the Marxoids, “liquidation of the Proletariat”). One can sum that up in the vulgar phrase, “If the State had been abolished a century ago, we’d all have robots and summer homes in the Asteroid belt.”

The “Anarcho-capitalists” tend to conflate the Innovator (Entrepreneur) and Capitalist[4], much as the Marxoids and cruder collectivists do. (It’s interesting that the gradual victory of Austrian Economics, particularly in Europe, has led to some New Leftists at least to take our claim seriously that the Capitalist and Entrepreneur are very different classes requiring different analyses, and attempt to grapple with the problem [from their point of view] that creates for them.)

Agorists are strict Rothbardians, and, I would argue in this case, even more Rothbardian than Rothbard [5], who still had some of the older confusion in his thinking. But he was Misesian, and Mises made the original distinction between Innovators/Arbitrageurs and Capital-holders (i.e., mortgage-holders, coupon-clippers, financiers, worthless heirs, landlords, etc.). With the Market largely moving to the ‘net, it is becoming ever-more pure entrepreneurial, leaving the brick ‘n’ mortar “capitalist” behind.

But it is dealing with current politics and current defence where Agorists most strongly differ from “anarcho-capitalists.” A-caps generally (and they have lots of individual variation) believe in involvement with existing political parties (libertarian, Republican, even Democrat and Socialist, such as the Canadian NDP), and, in the extreme case, even support the Pentagon and U.S. Defense complex to fight communism (I wonder what their excuse is now?) until we somehow get to abolishing the State. Agorists, as you have undoubtedly picked up, are revolutionary; we don’t see the market triumphing without the collapse of the State and its ruling caste, and, as I point out in New Libertarian Manifesto, historically, they just don’t go without unleashing senseless violence on the usually peaceful revolutionaries who then defend themseelves.

Brad Spangler's notes: