Post-agorism? — A dialogue
10 May 2009 by Mike GogulskiPosted in diary | 1 Comment »
Reaction and discussion on Black Bloke’s Facebook posting of an antiwar.com article, “Jon Stewart: Wimp, Wuss, Moral Coward by Justin Raimondo” leads to Anna O Morgenstern saying:
Anna:
Killing a mafia boss’s family to get him to surrender is still murder.
Mike:
Assuming their innocence, your morality is beautiful.
Anna: aww thanks! *blush*
Well yes. This (your qualification) is also revealing. To blame an entire people for the actions of their government is precisely the mindset of “the terrorists”. When it is employed by other people, it doesn’t become any more palatable.
Also, Mike I think what you’re doing with your state-abandonment project is one of the first open examples of what I call “post-agorism”… that is to act in all ways without accepting anyone as a legitimate authority at the point of action, not just in catallactic ways.
Mike:
You’re welcome. And… *what*! “Post-agorism”? Hmmm… I look at agorism as a very, very young social current. Would, even, that it were as glorified a thing today as a “fringe movement”. It ain’t, yet, despite what me might wish.
“Post”-agorism? What would that even mean? I’m totally stoked for that, but, seriously… I am not asking to be a jackass, I’d really like to know what you’re referring to.
Don’t make any mistakes, though, about my alleged purity. Though I am doing some perhaps bold things on the intertubes these days, I am really doing so yet only in spaces where I feel relatively safe. In that vein, I would like to be as bold as possible. I would also like to avoid prison and the gallows in the process. I have bowed to authority in becoming re-documented; not because I think that is necessary, but because the “stateless person’s travel document” functions as a talisman to ward off cops who might otherwise jail me.
Anna:
Ahh what I mean by that is that Agorism is usually applied only to catallactic transactions, that is to counter-economics. But the theory behind it can be applied to your whole life. That authorities aren’t “authorities” just people trying to control you, and it’s up to you to decide what everything means… to you.
I think it’s only wise to avoid the super-mafias of the world when necessary, but I just think most people who call themselves “agorists” need to look past just making wealth on the grey or black markets and to their entire life.
Mike:
Empowering.
In truth, I have little idea what “most agorists” look at. Where I can, I try to read what they write. We share some ideas. I have adopted the label and come to push the agorist dialectic, because early last year I found myself reading a few explicitly agorist writings (Konkin, Spangler, Royce Christian, others) and found myself saying: here is where I stop. Here is where I am home. I’ve found a model, imperfect though it might be, wherein I can reorganize my perceptions, at least until something better comes along.
On a very meta level, I could criticize agorism for demanding secrecy TODAY in the hopes of realizing freedom TOMORROW. I could, but I won’t. The enemy is extraordinarily powerful, very well organized, and has crawled into the brainspaces of nearly every person on the planet to the extent that those have built part of their identity around the corruption. Secrecy seems necessary, at least in part, for practical reasons, though regrettable for idealistic ones.
One Response to “Post-agorism? — A dialogue”
By Royce Christian on 12 May 2009
Shux! To be referenced among Brad Spangler and Konkin in the same line is truly an honour, though undeserved.
It’s interesting. What Anna seems to be arguing is something similar to what Max Stirner and the Egoists proposed of self-liberation. Although I openly admit that I have not read the Ego and Its Own your act of ’stateless-ness’ can be characterised as overtly rejecting external authorities on the individual — something which you would find Stirner supporting. For him, it is natural to live without restriction from these authorities.
Agorism begins with Egoism; the desire for an individual to be free (self-liberation). However Agorism’s love of counter economics, which is essentially a revolution, is something that in the end requires a consciousness of the needs and suffering of those around us. It then implies that the individual work towards liberty with other, like-minded individuals, but avoid confronting the system directly, instead attacking it asymmetrically.
Egoism rejects this and regards the individual, the self, as (for lack of a better term) the centre of the universe.
Counter Economics and Egoist-style self-liberation diverge at a certain point and yet counter economics seems to be a certain type of ’self-liberation’, just not of the brand that Stirner seems to have imagined.