Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


+1 vote
I've been doing a lot of studying on anarchism and my research on the psuedo-anarchistic school of anarcho-capitalism led me to, surprisingly, a left-libertarian philosophy that derives itself from that.

To those who aren't familiar with it, let me see if I can teach you enough about it to give good answers.

Here's a good place to start:

Basically the philosophy goes almost totally to left than Rothbard's the radically psuedo-statist philosophy which it derives from. It still supports the idea of a market economy but is against capitalism and its coercive nature... but not entirely.

Advocates hold that by engaging in things such as counter-economics and direct action, the state will weaken and be easier to remove in favor of anarchism.

Agorism's creator, Samuel Edward Konkin III, went head to head with Rothbard and his followers about it given how much of its philosophy wasn't compatible with their ideas and tactics.

For example: Rothbard rather hypocritically believed that while the state should be eliminated, he held it was an imperative "anarchists" vote people into positions of power within it to help make his supposed anarchist society possible.

In fact let me post up his justification for why supposed anarchists like him should vote. Please hold on to something because this will likely cause you to experience a sudden loss of brain cells:

"Let's put it this way: Suppose we were slaves in the Old South, and that for some reason, each plantation had a system where the slaves were allowed to choose every four years between two alternative masters. Would it be evil, and sanctioning slavery, to participate in such a choice? Suppose one master was a monster who systematically tortured all the slaves, while the other one was kindly, enforced almost no work rules, freed one slave a year, or whatever. It would seem to me not only not aggression to vote for the kinder master but idiotic if we failed to do so. Of course, there might well be circumstances — say when both masters are similar — where the slaves would be better off not voting in order to make a visible protest — but this is a tactical not a moral consideration. Voting would not be evil but, in such a case, less effective than the protest."

Konkin on the other hand lambasted him saying that genuine anarchists should boycott voting in favor of alternatives that don't make use of the political system.

Here's what he said:

"Can you imagine slaves on a plantation sitting around voting for masters and spending their energy on campaigning and candidates when they could be heading for the “underground railway?” Surely they would choose the counter-economic alternative; surely Dr. Rothbard would urge them to do so and not be seduced into remaining on the plantation until the Abolitionist Slavemasters’ Party is elected."

He also pointed out that even if Rothbard's ideal politicians did get into power, there was no guarantee that they'd play ball. So why bother in the first place considering there's no way to kick them out immediately or directly make sure they did so.

If anyone needs another place to study, there's a whole site devoted to it and explaining what it's about here:

That all said, what are you thoughts regarding agorism?
by (570 points)
edited by
Agorism is just one way to undermine the state and the statist-capitalist system. It has its merits and, alongside political, educational and civil disobedience action, should further weaken state and statist-capitalist power.
hey Imback, capitalists of whatever variety are requested to not answer questions here. posting comments and asking questions is fine, but please do not post answers.  thanks.
So I take it from your response you're not a big fan of it, dot. If so, could you share your views on it?
dot is very evasive and will not answer personal questions, and this is obviously an anti-anarcho-capitalist space despite the fact they they've pretty much been free to say whatever they want, but seeing as i hate capitalism and im a very inefficient money-waster then ill answer
aside from a vague distaste for discussions about markets and for concepts of linear progression, i don't have any thing to say about this. i don't learn enough about anything from a wikipedia entry to have an opinion.

Dot, agorism appears to be quite a significant part of anarchism. Do you have an opinion on the information from

Much of what SEK3 said about the relative ineffectiveness of partyarchy appears to have been borne out in the 30+ years since he founded agorism.

it all sounds very vague to me. but from what i can tell, agorism still functions by using the money supply as created by the government/federal reserve/banking system - a debt-based, government controlled currency that includes interest and inflation - something i have no interest in promoting or expanding. 

as funky@ said in the answer below, i want a way of life not rooted in the ideology of economics. i desire to relate and live as much as i can outside the money system...without regard for or belief in it....not some supposedly kinder, gentler version of that i can't even see how it would function in my daily life, or how it could possibly come about.

is partyarchy the domination of society by the party-people? I like to think of myself as a becoming-party-persxn. I want to join the crunk cadre.

2 Answers

–3 votes
I think it's an interesting ideology because it's main-spokespeople emphasize innovation and competition between small scale entrapaneurs, and as the asker already pointed out, it conflicts with Murray Rothbard's double-think ideology of  heavily-controlled-and-redistributed-freedom.

However, you have to ask yourself, what is an entrapanuer? What do they do, how do they profit, where do they eat, where do they shit?

De-regulated small scale capitalism already exists in lots of "developing countries". Do you like sitting on the side walk all day pumping orange juice? And in the united states, all sorts of petit booesrgsie leftists try to make money off their hobbies....and find it impossible or very stressful because of free market competition

So beyond the people who represent the idoleology and the ideas....nothing interesting!

Thank you!
edited by anonymous
Perhaps one of the reasons that people find it impossible and/or stressful is the proportion of their income that is taken from them in the form of direct and indirect taxes ...
+3 votes

after reading a bit on, i am not sure i can see a substantial difference between anarcho-capitalism and agorism. but perhaps more to the point, agorism looks like a (social) system rooted completely in economics. that is a worldview i want to get as far away from as possible.

replacing statecraft/politics with markets/economics does not seem very liberatory to me. i want the state gone as much as anyone, but i don't see the state as the sole obstruction to my living freely. agorism seems to make the state its only boogeyman. it ain't the worst boogeyman, if you have to have one, i'll concede that. i just don't find it very useful to think that way.

by (13.4k points)

agorism itself is supposed to be a tactic to bring ancapistan to fruition. They think black markets and tax evasion will topple the state lol.

What is a worse boogeyman than the State?

dotnetspec, first, i am not interested in pursuing your many many many links. if you have an argument to make, i am prepared to read what you write, until i'm not anymore. if you can't make your argument without tons of back up from other sites, then i will not be following your argument.

second, the boogeymen are connected to each other. to say there is one that is worst is just saying that one is more obvious. the same reasoning gets people to vote for mitt romney instead of barack obama (or whatever). some anarchists are compelled by that reasoning. i, for one, am not.

"What is a worse boogeyman than the State?"

the state + capitalism + religion + ....   (as dot alludes to)

but actually, you misunderstood my statement, dns. what i said was if you had to have just one, the state is not the worst one i could think of. but again, that kind of myopic thinking doesn't work for me.

My points do not depend on the many, many, many [?] links. I simply add them as a, hopefully useful, supplement to what I'm anyway saying.

The State is an obvious boogeyman because it relies on physical coercion at it's core. I have no problem with critiques of 'capitalism', but, for me, a physically coercive solution (if one where to be adopted) would be no solution and this is an important distinction.

funky - "if you had to have just one" which 'one' would it be?

sorry, not playing your game. as i mentioned, that kind of myopic, single-issue thinking does not work for me.

capitalism is every bit as physically coercive as the state, and in fact most often uses the state for its forceful coercion. they are fundamentally interdependent. and let's not leave out the hands-down winner when it comes to forceful coercion through human history: (institutional) religion, which is also completely dependent on the state. don't even get me started on the level of coercion (forceful and otherwise) required by industrial technology; which is also inseparable from capitalism and the state.

so to reiterate dot's point: all the big old boogeymen are interrelated. trying to isolate one as the biggest and baddest is a pointless exercise in my mind. in any given context, one might well play a larger or more direct role; but that changes with the context. for myopic thinkers, there is no place for context, there is only their chosen boogeyman.

i know you disagree. but unless you have something new to bring to the discussion, i have no more to say about it.