Тег: counterculture

Hi, a question about the balance of political and countercultural methods

Since the majority of Russia’s population are “hereditary” statistists with deep subconscious demands for a leftist agenda (I was like that myself, and I’m the one who broke away from it), I believe that ancap cannot be achieved through political methods alone. Propaganda for statistists leaks from every crack, and it relies on middle-aged and elderly people (as people with already formed views), while for the youth, very dangerous ideas of “patriotism,” “service to the state,” and all this pro-statist nonsense are promoted almost from kindergarten. This is exactly where a countercultural method is required. In youth, it is much easier and more interesting to go against the current than when you already have something to lose. And reading heavy economic theory…? Few will manage it. Many are repulsed by politics, even though people may be ideologically for freedom (which is why they are repulsed, as current politics are against freedom). In short, we need more counterculture (because the state is in the minds), more agorism (especially in legal spheres—it needs to be shown that freelancing for crypto or fiat, and direct buy-sell deals on Avito and similar resources are good and profitable!), and more decentralization in everything, especially with the approaching total information and biometric control by the state.

It is possible to live, at least partially, according to ancap, and the goal is to convey this to a receptive audience. What do you think?

анонимный вопрос

Libertarianism is very strongly tied to ethics. The same people in the same conditions can either create bloody chaos or a cozy community with respect for private property, freedom of trade, and the values of good neighborliness. Of course, ethics are inevitably developed through the practice of interaction. There is no central authority, there is an opportunity to buy weapons—and with every armed conflict, the survivors will accumulate both the skills of living without a central authority and the skills of respecting others’ rights. But humans did not create culture so that every new generation would have to make its own mistakes entirely on its own.

Fictional plots educate worse than direct experience, but they still do it. Some will respond better to movies, some to novels, some to jokes, and some to memes. The wider the cultural layer, the more people it will hook. Moreover, the cultural transmission of ethical values will allow ancap to be instilled in certain individuals even within a statist society.

And besides artistic culture, there is perhaps the most important mechanism for transmitting values—the ethical statement through personal example. If you are offered “white” employment, you can make a disgusted face, ask how the employer isn’t ashamed to spend the payroll fund to feed the state, and demand to be employed “under the table.” If you like a small lawn near your entrance and want to plant flowers, don’t forget a sign saying “converted to private property by the resident of apartment X by right of original appropriation”; you can even reference Rothbard for solidity. When borrowing money until payday, suggest drafting a short contract specifying: who borrowed it, when it will be returned, at what interest rate, and what sanctions apply for untimely return.

In other words, it is very useful to show that this was not only possible, but that it works best. Draw boundaries between your own and not your own, respect the rights of others, avoid appealing to the state—and be a successful person while doing so. That is when ancap will form around you on its own.

My wall—my rules. And the door—well, I just homesteaded it for good measure, no one else claimed it.

What do you think about agorism? Are there differences between anarcho-capitalism and agorism?

Classical Liberal

The difference between ancap and agorism is quite simple. Ancap is a state of society in which institutionalized coercion is absent, while agorism is a strategy for achieving ancap. In one of my early posts “Ancap or Minarchism?” I called this method counter-cultural, as opposed to political, but I am ready to agree that the term is subpar and a mouthful; in the future, I will use the word “agorism” specifically.

Agorism assumes that the only effective strategy for achieving ancap is direct action. If you want ancap, live according to ancap; do not try to bargain with the state or use state-approved mechanisms for interacting with the state, because this practice, which is questionable in terms of protecting rights, strengthens those very mechanisms and the state along with them.

Agorism is the black market, private education, crypto-economics, horizontal ties, and voluntary mutual aid. As is easy to see, in recent years, agorists have achieved considerable success in developing the necessary infrastructure and do not plan to stop.

However, it is also easy to see that the greatest intellectual contribution to the development of agorist mechanisms is still made by people living in relatively free states, while agorists in somewhere like China keep quiet as mice. Thus, for agorism to emerge as an ideological direction and develop steadily, rather than representing spontaneous, easily suppressed acts of defiance against violence, a certain basic level of political and economic freedoms is necessary, and this level is achieved precisely by political methods.

On the other hand, for example, the economic transformation from a planned to a market economy in Russia happened largely thanks to the black market that had already developed in the late Soviet Union; without it, private property would have had to be created from absolute scratch, which would have been far more difficult.

Finally, I will note that for a market to emerge, a certain minimum level of trust in society is required, without which the costs of ensuring security simply eat up all the benefits of most transactions, making market relations marginal, while subsistence farming and various forms of coercion come to the fore. The best mechanism for establishing trust is the successful experience of joint activity. And here, political activity, some form of cooperative economics, charity, and even sports competitions or mass celebrations are equally suitable.

So both agorism and political libertarianism successfully work toward the same goal. The more political rights there are relative to underdeveloped economic rights, the more relevant agorism becomes. The more economic rights there are relative to underdeveloped political rights, the more relevant political activity becomes, although it may also take on very peculiar forms—which is no surprise if parties are not registered and not included in ballots. And in a situation where there are neither political nor economic rights, I’m sorry, but the most direct path is flight from this hell, or an armed uprising.

Another pitfall of agorism: the similarity of methods with left-wing anarchists can lead to migration toward their ideology. Be careful with that.

How will the transition to ancap be carried out in general, and in Russia in particular?

анонимный вопрос

In the post about ancap and minarchism, I described two possible ways of building ancap: the political and the countercultural. The political approach boils down to reforming the state into a minarchist state, and then further reducing it through political means up to its full formal dissolution. The countercultural approach boils down to a factual refusal to use the state, and especially a refusal to provide it with any resources whatsoever, from money to brains.

In a poll on the most promising method, my readers preferred the political method, although a significant number of votes went to the view that one should first achieve the maximum possible through political means, and then use the countercultural method to finish off the weakened state mechanism.

Personally, it seems to me that there will be more and more ancap in our lives as people learn to hide their income from the state more effectively and grow wealthy faster than they are plundered. A poor person may still hope that the state will rob the rich and give it to them. A wealthy person only needs to be left alone; they will figure it out themselves.

It is very important that working for the state be humiliating and serve as a demonstration of incompetence, while working for a private individual signifies both respect and prosperity. For this, it is important that entrepreneurs and their employees realize the unity of their interests: the less the state gets in the way, the more those who work will get. And this is achieved only through the widespread penetration of ideas.

The temptation of the political path is that a politician can lead society to their desired result almost by force, whereas the method of cultural transformation assumes a broad acceptance of libertarian ideas by society. It is also important to understand that any failure of libertarian political reforms hits the image of the ideology (look what those damned liberalasts have brought the country to!), and any success is easily converted by the state into its own strengthening (you’ve grown rich—now share!). Meanwhile, public sentiment cannot be uprooted so easily, which is why the path to approximating ancap through it is much more reliable.

This is the kind of tax collection graph we need

According to economic research, sustainable economic growth correlates weakly with the democratic or authoritarian nature of a state and the volume of state intervention in the economy — institutions play the decisive role. So how do we move from modern Russia to a country with a normal court, for example?

anonymous question

As I have already noted in the article on ancap and minarchism, there are two paths for changes in society: the political and the countercultural. For example, the Corn Laws in Great Britain were repealed through political means, while Lincoln’s famous Homestead Act was simply a recognition of a state of affairs already established through countercultural means.

How to act politically is more or less clear: through political pressure. All unjust sentences are contested in higher courts, the judges who issued them are shamed, there are no plea bargains or simplified judicial procedures, and all conversations with the police take place only in the presence of a lawyer… Simultaneously, a project for judicial reform is popularized, and every politician claiming any public visibility must be pressed about their attitude toward this project; if they dare say a word against it, they must be completely denied support. In a similar way, Prohibition was introduced in the States—you can imagine how strong the resistance was. So, one should not underestimate the capabilities of influence groups.

The countercultural method is also more or less clear. A complete refusal to voluntarily apply to state courts, non-recognition of any state court sentences, but simultaneously—the strengthening of the institute of arbitration, private investigation, and contract enforcement. There are examples of the success of such an approach to reshaping institutions, and in recent history: when Great Britain began to recognize the decisions of Sharia courts, it was precisely a surrender to a state of affairs established through countercultural means.

Counterculture on the march

And while others discuss other things, I am talking about bitcoins. There is a political way to establish them as a means of payment: lobbying for their legalization. And there is a countercultural way: simply conduct all settlements in bitcoins whenever possible, and reject offers to pay in rubles whenever possible. The ability to send me a donation in bitcoins from a bank card is a kind of compromise; of course, it’s better to do it directly: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8.