Counter-economics as revolutionary praxis and the rise of the Russian Business Network (RBN)
One doesn’t have to gloss over the ethical problems (from a libertarian point of view) with any particular illegal enterprise in order to analyze the prefigurative indicators of insurrectionary potential inherent in counter-economic activity. John Robb makes an excellent such analysis in his recent post on the Russian Business Network (RBN). Also pay attention to the second and third sections of this older post.
The challenge for advocates of agorism in this environment boils down to boosting their public advocacy of the non-aggression principle to such a point that adherence to it begins to “pay” in a sense of significantly reduced defense costs for those illegal enterprises which do adhere to it. The result would be a coherent “lasing” from red market activity to black market activity.
Share This
This bring to mind a few questions if had about Agoric strategy.
Does Agorism focus primarily on creating a consciously libertarian counter-economy, or introducing libertarian elements into the existing one? In other words, to what extent is it new, and to what extent is it simply a reform and development on existing relations?
This ties into the matter of security agencies. An Agorist strategy would clearly have to make a conscious and deliberate attempt to displace protection rackets by organized crime, probably long before it can take on the state. How do we prevent new ones from arising before a particular market achieves a critical mass of protection firms? And what is the proper reaction to other coercive activities in the mean time, like human trafficking?
re: Does Agorism focus primarily on creating a consciously libertarian counter-economy, or introducing libertarian elements into the existing one?
My reading of Konkin on this is “either”, but your opinion may vary. Please share any interesting thoughts you may have on this topic.
re: “An Agorist strategy would clearly have to make a conscious and deliberate attempt to displace protection rackets by organized crime”
True, but such a strategy would not necessarily be the action plan of a single organization. Such new competition for old skool gangstas will emerge if the basic ideas/themes of non-aggressive “crimes” not being criminal in any moral sense are promoted enough.
re: “How do we prevent new ones from arising before a particular market achieves a critical mass of protection firms?”
I would say that a better question for the counter-economic security entrepreneur to ask might be “How do I protect my clients from x or stuff like x?”
Until a new organization starts acting like a coercive monopoly, you have no way to “prevent new ones from arising” which doesn’t ALSO prevent legitimate competitors from arising — imperiling your own non-state legitimacy, and hence painting a big target on YOUR chest (which you presumably don’t need).
re: “And what is the proper reaction to other coercive activities in the mean time, like human trafficking?”
Well, you should feel free to explore the topic in your own thinking, writing and discussions.
My take on it personally and in trying to reconstruct mentally how I suspect Konkin might have seen it?
Properly, the principal concerns in evaluating ANY proposed individual action are:
1) ethical — Is it allowed by the non-aggression principle?
2) practical — Is it productive? [In other words, does your own subjective evaluation of the costs (including risks) get outweighed by your own subjective evaluation of the "profits" (not just monetary, but any gain in perceived value)?]
…in that order of importance.
My reading of Konkin on this is “eitherâ€Â, but your opinion may vary.
I like to divide things between small “a” Agorism (non-aggressive counter-economics as a practice, a way of acting) and big “A” Agorism (as practiced self-consciously by Agorists). That so many people become practicing Agorists on their own, purely out of self-interest, is encouraging. That affirms counter-economics as a society tendency independent of ideology. On the other hand, I wonder if self-conscious Agorism is needed to provide enough continuity between people for successful dispute resolution mechanisms to arise, and to provide a culture of resistance that discourages new protection rackets from appearing.
Until a new organization starts acting like a coercive monopoly, you have no way to “prevent new ones from arising†which doesn’t ALSO prevent legitimate competitors from arising
Well, I meant how do you guard against the possibility of the first provider in the field turning the guns around before any other providers appear? Security is the one area where the Austrian conception of monopoly breaks down; a firm that did totally occupy a market could easily assert itself as a monopoly, unless the costs of creating a protection racket were significantly higher than those of legitimate protection service.
You argue that a culture of non-aggression will promote those conditions. I generally agree with that, but I’d feel a lot more secure if it happened spontaneously in at least some situations where black markets are present. Extortion is all you ever hear about. If you have any examples to the contrary, I’d be glad to hear them.