We're aligned with the Agorist Webring
We're aligned with the Agorist Webring
Agorism is not only an ideology, but also a scientific and definitely materialistic way of thinking. It is not a religious point of view, but safeguards the complete freedom to be moral, just as it has little desire to marginalise one's religious beliefs, unless they lead to enslavement. Agorism rejects ‘true believers’ as blind followers. Like any scientific mode of thought, agorism will involve our understanding of reality. One who holds faith in something that has been proven false is not an agorist, even if that something was once one of the tenets of agorism.
Reality is our standard. Nature is our lawgiver.
Samuel Edward Konkin III, known as SEK3 or Sam Konkin (8 July 1947, Saskatchewan, Canada - 23 February 2004, Los Angeles, USA), was an American libertarian philosopher, author of the New Libertarian Manifesto and originator of agorism, a form of anarchism based on ‘counter-economics’ rather than political action. Editor of publications such as New Libertarian, he saw libertarianism as a left-wing revolutionary movement. He rejected suffrage, punishment and corporate hierarchy, advocating anti-capitalist free markets and restitution as justice. Founder of the Agorist Institute and the Movement of Libertarian Left, his ideas influenced works of science fiction such as Alongside Night.
Agorism is a methodology composed of two parts: its means (the counter-economy) and its end (the agora), it is an internally coherent package. Counter-economics is the use of black and grey markets (see ‘Theory of Market Types’), i.e. essentially trading risk for profit, and has taken over much of the world economy. It involves not only the exchange of goods, but also of services: growing your own drugs, manufacturing your own medicines and hormone treatments, trading 3d printed firearms, providing transportation and encouraging illegal immigration, and so on. It's about making you ‘invisible’ to the state, this way, they can't extract from your taxes not knowing your existence as a subordinate to the monopoly and end up collapsing. The counter-economy is a counter-institution, such as local self-reliance, mutual aid, cultural liberation and worker cooperatives.
We continue ultimately with the second part of this package, the agora (the closest approximation to a free society), is a free market society, without a currency with value set through the state (the currencies that would exist would do so like crypto-currencies, based on market supply and demand), without classes (there would be no parasitic class, they were ended by the counter-economists) and without a state (by ending classes and freeing markets, this ends up being the consequence). It's consistent with counter-economics, for counter-economics is basically the laying of bricks for the construction of a house, this house being the agora. This market corrects itself, transforms itself and ultimately builds a post-structuralist system compatible with pure libertarianism.
Source: Samuel Edward Konkin III - An Agorist Primer
In agorism, a “theory of market types” is present, which is necessary for the correct functioning and internal maintenance of the coherence of our ideology. Five distinctions of “market types” can be made, but under what standard can we establish them? Let's see: Our main separator is “moral” or “immoral”, to moral corresponds all actions in which coercion is not present, i.e. voluntary actions—therefore, immoral is the opposite, actions in which coercion is present, i.e. involuntary actions. Then, our second separator is composed of three parts: “approved by the state,” “forbidden by the state, unless done in a definite way,” and “forbidden by the state.” With these measuring rods, we can construct the following markets: The white market is that which is moral and approved by the state, the gray market is that which is moral and prohibited by the state, unless done in a defined way, finally in the territories of morality, there are the black markets which are prohibited by the state. Moving on to the “immoral” there are the pink markets, which are those allowed by the state but which involve coercion, and the red markets which are prohibited by the state.
The counter-economy includes the free market, the “black” market, the “subway economy”, all acts of civil and social disobedience, all acts of forbidden association (sexual, racial, inter-religious), and anything else that the State, at any time and place, chooses to prohibit, control, regulate, tax or tariff. The counter-economy excludes all state-approved action (“white” market) and the “red” market (violence and theft not approved by the state). On the other hand, Konkin points out that the white market is also market activities under state control and the “agorist imperative is to transform the white into black”, i.e., to take these activities out of state control by means of counter-economics.
Source: Samuel Edward Konkin III - What is counter-economics?
We tend to interpret “capitalism” as synonymous with “free market”, before, we will clarify that Professor Roderick T. Long explained that capitalism and socialism are contronyms, i.e., they can have the meaning of the other depending on the context in which they are used. In this case, capitalism is the capital-based system. For Konkin, who drew three distinctions among market actors, the non-statist capital owners were neutral in character, without ideological consciousness and “non-innovative automatons”, while the pro-statist capital owners were a parasitic class and a principal evil of the political realm, in the agorist theory, those who are capital owners, i.e. the benefactors of the capitalist system are not similar to the free markets, but those who were, were the entrepreneurs: Those who have an innovative, risk-taking character and especially are producers, self-employed and freely associated, i.e., the force of a market.
The term capitalism is used by another branch of anarchists, the anarcho-capitalists. According to some, anarcho-capitalism is simply the broad idea of an anarchist network where goods and services are exchanged voluntarily: This simple idea, despite resonating with the agorists, does not make us anarcho-capitalists, but why? First, this idea of a “free market” is not only what anarcho-capitalists advocate, otherwise it would not be considered an ideology (network of ideas), it's not developed enough to be one: Anarcho-capitalists declared themselves advocates of many, many more things that the agorists rejected, things like absentee ownership (through voluntaryism), rent (the “right” to increase, in general), stock markets, contract law, large landowners or employee-employer relations. Agorists adhere to a class theory (See “Agorist Class Theory”) where we reject absentee ownership by rejecting coercive hierarchies of violence, therefore this economic model and policy is incompatible and contradictory to our ideological proposal: Our sense of ownership is similar to the mutualists, you control the product of your labor and what you can individually keep. Our model of work is not bureaucratic but a self-employment of free association, entrepreneurs united by a cause in “free cells” as described by Derrick Broze. The market is therefore an equalizing medium.
Sources: Roderick T. Long - "Capitalism" and "Socialism" are anti-concepts
Daniel Costa - What is anarcho-capitalism?
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - What is property?
Phase 0: Zero-Density Agorist Society
In this phase of human history, no agorists exist, only scattered libertarians or proto-libertarians practicing counter-economics. When someone reads this manifesto and applies it, we move to the next phase. Phase 0 involves slow consciousness evolution, hit-or-miss development, and frustrating dichotomies. As the first agorist in Phase 0, your strategy is to grow your numbers while living counter-economically. The best organization is a Libertarian Alliance, guiding members away from political activity toward education, publicity, recruitment, and anti-political campaigns (e.g., “Vote For Nobody,” “Boycott the Ballot,” “Don’t Vote, It Only Encourages Them!”). An LA takes unanimous libertarian positions, rejecting inconsistent ones. Encourage “hard-core” (consistent) principles and challenge “soft-core” (inconsistent) approaches.
Phase 1: Low-Density Agorist Society
In this phase, the first counter-economic libertarians emerge, and serious splits within the Libertarian movement begin. Many libertarians lack consistency, leading to deviationist ideas like "get-liberty-quick" schemes (e.g., anarchozionism or political opportunism), which inevitably fail. Liberty grows person by person, not through mass conversions, except in cases of statist attacks against informed collectives. The first New Libertarians focus on combating anti-principles that strengthen the State and redirect anarchist energy ineffectively. The strategy remains: guide libertarians into counter-economics and connect active agorists with counter-economists. During this phase, proto-New Libertarians operate within Libertarian groups as radical caucuses or form a Movement of the Libertarian Left (MLL), which recruits individuals leaning toward New Libertarianism. The MLL avoids rigid structures, relying on the most competent and dedicated members to coordinate. To engage public forums, pseudo-political tactics may be necessary, translating agorist ideas into terms people understand. Once the MLL grows sufficiently, its "hard-core" members can block State actions selectively, focusing on crises like war or mass repression. The ultimate goal is radicalizing libertarians and evolving the New Libertarian Alliance (NLA).
Phase 2: Mid-Density Agorist Society
At this point, statists begin to notice agorism as a threat. Previously, libertarians were manipulated by ruling factions, but now agorists are seen as disruptive. While mass arrests are unlikely, agorism has "contaminated" society enough that sympathy for agorists can restrain the State from large-scale repression. This phase sees the emergence of agorist communities or "ghettos," sustained by societal support. The New Libertarian Alliance (NLA) acts as the agora’s representative, publicizing the benefits of agorist living and advocating for tolerance. Its dual role is to defend the agorist sub-society from statist regression while promoting libertarian consciousness and accelerating the next evolutionary phase.
Phase 3: High-Density Agorist Society
In this phase, the State enters terminal crises caused by the growth of the Counter-Economy, which depletes its resources and corrodes its authority. Wars, inflation, and economic collapse escalate as the State struggles to maintain control. The New Libertarian Alliance (NLA) focuses on safeguarding agorism by resisting anti-principles and supporting the development of protection and arbitration systems. As the State’s authority crumbles, its ruling class unleashes one last wave of violence to suppress dissent and avoid accountability for past crimes. The NLA’s goal is to resist this suppression and prevent premature exposure or action that could destabilize progress. Revolution occurs when the State can no longer sustain its parasitic class, causing its enforcers to defect to agorist systems. This marks the State's collapse, leaving only isolated pockets of Statism in less advanced areas.
Phase 4: Agorist Society with Statist Impurities
In this phase, the State enters terminal crises due to the Counter-Economy, leading to wars, inflation, and collapse. The New Libertarian Alliance (NLA) focuses on protecting agorism and supporting systems of protection and arbitration. As the State weakens, its ruling class unleashes a final wave of violence to suppress dissent. The NLA’s mission is to resist this and prevent destabilization. Revolution occurs when the State collapses, as its enforcers shift allegiance to agorism, leaving behind isolated pockets of Statism.
Source: Samuel Edward Konkin III - New Libertarian Manifesto
Agorists and Marxists agree on the following premise: human society can be divided into two classes; one class is characterized by its control of the State and its extraction of unearned wealth from other classes. Moreover, Agorists and Marxists often point to the same individuals as members of the "upper class" and the "lower class." The differences become more pronounced as we move to the middle of the social pyramid. Agorists and Marxists both perceive a class conflict that must continue until an event resolves the struggle. Both sides identify select groups that will lead the victims against their oppressors. Marxists refer to these groups of high social class as "vanguardists," while Agorists perceive a spectrum of consciousness among the victims and see the most aware elements as the first recruits of the revolutionary cadre.
For Agorists, there are two classes: statists, meaning those who emulate the State through murder, theft, fraud, violations, or assaults. "These 'red marketeers' (profiting from blood, not gold or exchange goods)," SEK3 explained, "are best looked upon as degenerate factions of the ruling class." These "red marketeers," according to Agorists, are criminals. Meanwhile, at the same time (by the State's definition), so-called "criminals" (or criminal acts) that do not involve the initiation of violence or the threat thereof (coercion) are counter-economic. Since they go against the real or perceived interests of the State, and are usually productive, they are prohibited by the State. They are, therefore, objectively Agorist and, again, objectively revolutionary.
Konkin wrote: "Agorist class theory takes the best from both positions: a clear line between classes and a graduated spectrum." Individuals are complex and often confused. For example, a person may engage in some counter-economic acts or some statist ones. People (and groups of people) can be classified along the spectrum based on the predominance of Agorism over Statism. However, at any given moment, one can witness an action, judge it immediately, and take the corresponding counter-action or supportive action, if desired. What about motivation, knowledge, awareness of actions and their consequences, or professions of agreement? These are irrelevant; Agorists judge solely by actions. As explained in the New Libertarian Manifesto, regular and repeated patterns of aggression define someone as a habitual criminal—a Statist (or "pure Statist"). At the other end of the spectrum [from Statists] are those who are consistently counter-economic, reject government offerings, and disregard State regulations. If they report any earnings, it’s a minimal proportion of their actual income. Their occupation is to fulfill the demand the State seeks to suppress or eradicate. They not only act freely but also heroically. Just as there are super-Statists who fully understand the workings of the State and consciously use them, there are counter-economic agents on the other side who grasp the pure libertarian consistency and morality of their actions; these are the Agorists. "Opposing the power elite is the anti-power elite—the Agorist Revolutionary Cadre (or the New Libertarian Alliance).
What about the "middle class" on the spectrum? What about those who mix the profits from counter-economic acts with some statist acts? Their lives exist in shades of gray. Konkin went on to describe that, for Statists, these people are the victims, the sheep of the flock to be sheared and slaughtered. For Agorists, they are the "outer market," to be exchanged with for almost everything—except trust. One day, they will take control of their lives and polarize to one side or the other, failing if they stagnate in the Statist swamp or soaring in the winds of revolutionary change.
Source: Wally Conger - Agorist Class Theory: A Left Libertarian Approach to Class Conflict Analysis
Let's start this way: The irrefutable empirical conclusion about the economic effect of copyright on prices and wages is nothing, zero, an existential vacuum, scattered radiation in the universe, which you would need a Geiger counter to measure.
But why do anarchists, specifically we market anarchists, oppose copyright? There are two reasons: Primarily, copyrights are undeniably a state fiction, they cannot exist independently of a coercive apparatus that enforces these “rights”. Secondly, contrary to popular belief, they do not contribute to “creativity”, they contribute to the conversion of money into more capital for big businessmen, “copyrights” are a method of big publishers, to “protect” artists, to restrict trade. Yes, we are talking about monopoly. Corporations throw a bone to the struggling independent writer, and a piece of meat to the pampered one percent, when he does, receives an enforceable “right” over editing, typesetting, printing, packaging, marketing, and sometimes even local distribution: Undermining competition, these regulations are even dangerous in scientific areas, functioning as “gatekeepers” for medical and technological progress in general. In other words, patents are theft!
The system perpetuates itself, it's deeply against any principle of agorism, it crushes counter-economic and enterprising writers with good smuggling connections. Worse, going back to the first point, copyright permeates all mass media, it's theft, which no one dares to talk about: It corrupts markets, destroys competition and will be so, being so entrenched, until the abolition of the state. Konkin says, “Since the losers, unrenowned writers and all readers, lose so little each, we are content-apparently-with being plundered bit by bit. Why worry about mosquito bites when we have the vampiric bites of income taxes and auto tariffs?”
Another argument, are the simultaneous creators. Despite being strange, even more so if the work is complex, it is a case to consider: They are obvious victims. Especially, it chirps me that this fantasy is called “property”, property is the “right to increase”, even if they will say “They are not using your definitions, mutualist”, okay! This is not even halfway relevant, even using a more “accepted” definition of property, it's the concept drawn from the conceptual human to designate the distribution of scarce goods-basically, the whole material world-between greedy, competing egos. There is a nexus here, simultaneous creators: Two people, or more, can have the same idea and that should not take away anyone's right to develop it, you use yours as you like, and I will use mine as I like. On the other hand, ideas cannot be appropriated, because they are not scarce, ideas can be thought at any time, in any place, by any character and as many times as you want.
It's a creature of the state, a bat of a vampire, and as far as Konkin is on record, the name should be copywrong, because it's a limitation on freedom and consequently immoral.
Source: Samuel Edward Konkin III - Copywrongs
