Agorism and the revolutionary redistribution of property
A correspondent on a social network asks:
Hey i think we have a lot in common but i just had a question considering anarchist capitalism, seeing as that is the strain (at least from what i have inferred) you believe in. in an anarchist capitalist system, how is property, the basic unit of capitalism, protected without the state? for example if there is a factory and the workers take it over from the owner, who protects the owner? a private police force? Also, will wages and currency exist in an anarchist capitalist society? maybe i just have a major misunderstanding of anarchist capitalism.
Although I replied there, it occurred to me that my response ought to make a decent blog post with a little editing. Thus, here we go…
—
I consider myself anti-capitalist but market oriented. I used to call myself an “anarcho-capitalist”, but I was never in favor of what libertarian socialists call “capitalism” in the sense of a system of oppression. If that sounds incoherent, then we need to compare some definitions and have a longer talk.
Regarding property — like Proudhon, I distinguish between property in the sense of an unjust state privilege and property as a naturally occurring ethical phenomenon supported by widespread consensus. Property justly acquired through production or trade would be defensible in roughly the same manner “possession” would be defended under a usufruct property system. This property theory, while referred to as “private property”, actually provides a basis for the revolutionary redistribution of property from the state-allied plutocracy to the workers. See here:
http://agorism.info/_media/ma1.pdf
With regard to property claim conflicts between owners and workers, let me say that I envision the revolutionary process as the bootstrapping of a non-state system of law and security. The nature of that law would tend to favor selective redistribution of property from state-allied plutocrats to the workers, but redistribution would be an affirmation of property rights (of the workers) rather than their negation. On the other hand, just because someone is rich wouldn’t make it okay to take their stuff. Rather than wealth being judged on amounts, its ownership would be evaluated methodologically (e.g. “How was this acquired?”) with state-granted privilege being regarded as criminal means of acquisition, thus negating the fake state-granted property title.
—
I will be looking to revise the above and expand it into a booklet. I’ve been meaning to produce such for a while now, but procrastination takes a toll. At least I have a start now.
Share This
This’ll be a good beginning for a paper.
Not on that basis alone, no. But I take Carson’s view that somebody who’s rich is suspicious, because certain accumulations of wealth are near impossible to maintain without state inputs.
@jeremy — Agreed. Furthermore, the more statist the economy becomes the more suspicious wealth becomes.
@Black Bloke — Feel free to pursue your own take on it or re-use some of what I have above.
I honestly meant a paper for you to write, but I think I might incorporate some of this for somethings I’ll end up doing here.