Defending Rothbard's Response and an Analysis of Agorist Class TheoryThe Infamous Response to Konkin
Rothbard's critique of the New Libertarian Manifesto (NLM) is apparently controversial. It is claimed that Rothbard is attacking some argument other than what is proffered in the book. What Rothbard is critiquing is his actual arguments in the book. To clearly show this, we must analyze the book.
The following is a series of quotes and responses to NLM on the definition of agora and Konkin’s critiques of hierarchy.
From the NLM:
"The basic organizational structure of society (above the family) is not the commune (or tribe or extended tribe or State) but the agora."
What is the agora? Obviously, if we want to see what is “the basic organizational structure of society” we should try to figure out what
"Black and grey markets: the unconscious agora."
This is why he has to call it New Libertarianism instead of just regular libertarianism like Rothbard had already created by that point. This is pointing to agorism being something different than anarcho-capitalism. We will need to identify whether or not Konkin means only black or grey markets are meant by agora.
"New Libertarianism (agorism)"
He goes on to explain that this is what he considers the "open marketplace"
"libertarian in theory and free-market in practice, called agorist, from the Greek agora, meaning 'open marketplace'"
Konkin goes on to explain that agorism is the method of turning large sections of society from statist society to an "open market place [sic]". This confirms Rothbards claim that Konkin is treating marginalia as a majority of society. The black market is precisely what Rothbard states “that black markets are concentrated either in service industries or in commodities which are both valuable and easily concealed: jewels, gold, drugs, candy bars, stockings, etc.”
"It is possible, practical, and even profitable to entrepreneur large collections of humanity from statist society to the agora"
Konkin in the previous paragraph to the one quoted says that such black and grey markets are the key to collective action against the state. He even uses agorist to further solidify the term to be synonymous to black or grey market - for how can you turn away from "statist society" using the white market? He then goes on to use agora and its many forms to say how people will perform in the world.
Furthermore, his use of entrepreneur here will be addressed in Konkin’s Agorist class theory. It is one of the reasons why Konkin fails so mightily to come up with a theory that withstands scrutiny.
It is clear to see Konkin expects the black and grey markets to be the majority of sales and that agorism is that very black and grey market. Such symbolism has even been brought into the agorist flag of grey and black.
Konkin does attack business models:
"Many worthy libertarians argue that the market structures of businesses, partnerships and joint-stock companies [3] provide all the organization necessary or desirable; save maybe for personal mating or socializing."
To this he responds:
"In an agorist society, division of labor and self-respect of each worker-capitalist-entrepreneur will probably eliminate the traditional business organization - especially the corporate hierarchy, an imitation of the State and not the Market"
This makes clear that when Konkin says market, and thus agora (by definition), he means something without hierarchies. No employer-employee relationships. He sees that as being statist - just like the anarcho-communists do. Unlike Orthodox Marxists, he doesn't explain why it is statist. As I said in the live stream with Lowkey last week, at least Marxists can explain why businesses are statist using their own definitions of statist. Konkin doesn't outright say why, but context clues are enough to figure it out. Not that, but it fails economics as the traditional business model exists precisely because it was prevalent before the state was truly mucking around with the market. His statement of economic fact is simply the opposite of what occurs economically. Thus we can say Konkinians are the opposites of economists, just like we can make that claim against Marxists. The final point we can gleam from this is that he does not view hierarchy as something he imagines the Market to be. Why? Well, we can see of Rothbard’s critique of the black markets that such businesses don’t lend themselves to hierarchy and we will see in his class theory that this is also the conclusion of the failed class theory.
He even applies this non-hierarchical structure to his NLA:
"The organization of NLA (or NLAs) is simple and should avoid turning into a political organ or even an authoritarian organization. Rather than officers, what are needed are tacticians (local coordinators with competency in tactical planning) and strategists (regional coordinators with competency in strategic thinking). A New Libertarian Ally does not follow a tactician or strategist but rather "buys" their argument and expertise. Anyone offering a better plan can replace the previous planner. Tactics and strategy should be "bought and sold" by the Allies like any other commodity in consistent agorist fashion."
It is quite telling that such action is so decentralized that there are no command structures, but rather a group of people wherein only plans are discussed among equals. Such organization in the NLA is “authoritarian.”
At this point Rothbard's critique against Konkin's economics and anti-hierarchical theory should be proven to be a critique against what Konkin was actually arguing. The responses written to Rothbard fail to understand what Konkin has written or are simply using a sleight of hand where they write theory books that say one thing and then in discourse or debate only defend other positions. This is the main problem with agorists in the libertarian movement - they dupe newcomers with talk of the black market simply being a strategy against the state, but in their books say the black market is the whole of organizational structure of society - in fact the patriarchal family being permitted is an inconsistency in agorst theory. If hierarchy is to be abolished, then the family has to as well. Agorists try to destroy the family, the church, and business and think that doing so will bring about utopia. Their limited allowance of private property rights will make such a society better than the anarcho-communist’s commune, but will reduce society back to subsistence farming that existed before business was formed in the method it was.
Agorist Class Theory
Konkin discusses Agorist Class Theory in this interview. Let us start with quotes from Konkin to understand what he is saying.
Link to embed in “interview” (if not already embedded): http://www.spaz.org/~dan/individualist-anarchist/software/konkin-interview.html
Konkin is asked about the differences between agorists and anarcho-capitalists. Konkin responds by going into agorist class theory. The following is a quote from the article:
“First and foremost, agorists stress the Entrepreneur, see non-statist Capitalists (in the sense of holders of capital, not necessary [sic] ideologically aware) as relatively neutral drone-like non-innovators, and pro-statist Capitalists as the main Evil in the political realm. Hence our favorable outlook toward "conspiracy theory" fans, even when we think they're misled or confused. As for the Workers and Peasants, we find them an embarrassing relic from a previous Age at best and look forward to the day that they will die out from lack of market demand (hence my phrase, deliberately tweaking the Marxoids, ‘liquidation of the Proletariat’). One can sum that up in the vulgar phrase, ‘If the State had been abolished a century ago, we'd all have robots and summer homes in the Asteroid belt.’
The "Anarcho-capitalists" tend to conflate the Innovator (Entrepreneur) and Capitalist, much as the Marxoids and cruder collectivists do. (It's interesting that the gradual victory of Austrian Economics, particularly in Europe, has led to some New Leftists at least to take our claim seriously that the Capitalist and Entrepreneur are very different classes requiring different analyses, and attempt to grapple with the problem [from their point of view] that creates for them.)
Agorists are strict Rothbardians, and, I would argue in this case, even more Rothbardian than Rothbard, who still had some of the older confusion in his thinking. But he was Misesian, and Mises made the original distinction between Innovators/Arbitrageurs and Capital-holders (i.e., mortgage-holders, coupon-clippers, financiers, worthless heirs, landlords, etc.). With the Market largely moving to the 'net, it is becoming ever-more pure entrepreneurial, leaving the brick 'n' mortar ‘capitalist’ behind.”
Before delving into Agorist class theory, it is important to note that Konkin coined the phrase “liquidation of the proletariat.” This is the class of people who are workers for capitalists. This confirms my and Rothbard’s assertion that Agorism seeks to destroy business, as the proletariat cannot be liquidated without destroying employer-employee relationships and hence business.
Konkin’s main problem here is redefining as classes what is traditionally understood to be categorical market roles. The main issue with this deviation from and with agorism generally is that employer-employee and capital-having businesses are the majority of economic activity on the side of production/supply. Not only is it possible for one to be part of more than one class, but that is the majority case. Again, Konkin is treating marginalia as the rule or as Rothbard would put it “neglect the overwhelming bulk of economic life and to concentrate on marginalia”. While it is true that the FIRE sector is regulated and subsidized and this interferes with market activity, this does not mean without such regulations entrepreneurialism in these sectors would cease. We could say this limits entrepreneurial activity in that sector, but the businesses that do exist don’t fail to be entrepreneurs. Konkin doesn't understand what Mises was pointing out. Look at who Konkin attacks as non-entrepreneurs - landlords and financiers. Financiers as we saw in Economics in One Lesson are simply trading liquid capital for non-liquid capital. Landlords are providing housing to those who are not capable of fully financing the housing themselves. Both serve the purpose of entrepreneurialism in classical Austrian analysis - they bring products or services to market and sell them for a profit. That is all that is needed to be an entrepreneur under classical Austrian economics as that is key to the market finding correct prices through entrepreneurialism.
From both this point on “liquidating the proletariat” and the analysis of Agorist class theory, it shows that Rothbard was not only correct in reading the manifesto as he did, but that the strategy of agorism stems from their failure of class theory and aversion to hierarchy. Once we get rid of these two, Rothbard’s critique is on the nose.
