I liked the analysis: the pros, cons, pitfalls, limitations, prospects, and so on are listed. I will separately note the point that not everyone practicing counter-economics methods is an agorist. For example, North Korea earns from counter-economics, but they are not our bros.
It seems to me that for agorism to succeed, two factors must coincide. First, there must be an anocracy in the country (I would even say a failed state, but this term has many negative connotations because that state is mainly associated with contempt for private property). Second, agorism must be fashionable. Ideally—on the level of the movie Alongside Night. And if we can do little in terms of weakening the state, then as for the second condition, the cards are in our hands.
Libertarian Band has launched a new section called “Question to Bitarch,” where the channel host answers on behalf of Bitarch. Naturally, all answers concern only the topic of fighting violence, which is being actively developed by Bitarch, and this is a respectable level of determination.
For my part, I should note that I am not particularly fond of Lorenz’s concept of aggression, which treats it as a kind of tension that accumulates and eventually bursts. I still prefer the version that aggression is one of the types of reaction to a stimulus (the desire to destroy the source of irritation), along with flight (the desire to avoid the stimulus) and patience (the desire to adapt to the stimulus while minimizing costs). If we proceed from the version of aggression as tension, then widespread armament can only contain this tension for a short time until it accumulates and breaks out in a bloodbath, so it is somewhat strange to me that Bitarch adopts this idea so uncritically.
As for the ways to eradicate violence, I am closer to the approach of Alexander Elesev from the Dobroum channel, who argues that there will be far fewer prerequisites for violence if people do not have experience with violence in the family. Not that everything works so straightforwardly, but it would be an important component of success. And the second component of success in eliminating systematic violence is the cultivation of intolerance toward it. Someone who steps in to break up a fight is always a good person, regardless of whether they might get hit by both sides; they are within their rights. If you want to fight, surround this ritual with rules, conduct it in the presence of witnesses, determine the criteria for victory, accept defeat if the rules require it, and fulfill the conditions you committed to in case of defeat. If you are not ready for such complexities, do not pick a fight.
I understand that these theses seem very raw, but this is not my field of expertise. I am glad that Bitarch continues to systematize his ideas while receiving feedback from readers. Perhaps I will receive some response from him regarding the considerations outlined above.
The fourth video from the “Anarchist Cookbook” series, dedicated to the darknet, has been released on the Libertarian Band channel. I watched it with great pleasure and learned a lot of new things. There’s nothing to criticize; everything seems clear and on point. Thanks to the guys for maintaining the standard. I highly recommend it.
Libertarian Band has released the third video from the “Agorist Cookbook” series, this time dedicated to how to avoid the army. The video is long, over 15 minutes, but includes timecodes. You can skip directly to the “Practical Tips” section at 5:23, because before that there is a long historical introduction about what conscription was like during the times of Ochakov and the conquest of Crimea, and this introduction has no connection to the subsequent detailed and useful practical instructions.
To the tips suggested in the video, I will add my own. Instead of trying to abuse the system through courts and begging for the right to alternative civilian service, you can simply leave the country in advance. Montenegro, where I am moving, is not the only option; there are many other places where a Russian person lives more freely and prosperously than under the jurisdiction of Moscow.
This is precisely the most agorist way to avoid the army draft. This is the method described by Ayn Rand in her most famous work. Our ancestors, by dismantling the Soviet Union, achieved the most important freedom for us: the freedom to leave. If they had had this freedom, how many Russians would not have perished in the 20th century at the hands of the Soviet state! So let us not undervalue this crucial achievement. We are now left with no other way to vote for a better future for ourselves than by voting with our feet.
Libertarian Band has released the second video in their series on agorism, and since I am no longer involved in production, I am personally very curious to see what they’ve put together this time.
It’s about methods for ensuring anonymity. Judging by the thoroughness of the presentation, Bitarch acted as the consultant. The set of recipes looks even more hardcore than in Svetov’s video on a similar topic.
In my view, the video feels like a “how to assemble a class five body armor” guide, with a hint that the real pros actually build tanks, but this will do for a start. In other words, it’s clear that if you want to, you can secure yourself very effectively, but it’s not very clear how to actually walk around town with all that. Perhaps it would have been better to structure the material differently: here are the possible threat levels, and here are the recommended protections for each threat, what the consequences of ignoring the recommendations are, and what the probability of getting caught is.
In this regard, from a purely screenwriting perspective, Svetov acted more competently, because he didn’t talk about abstract online anonymity, but tied it to a specific case involving a Chechen who beat up some “cosmonauts” at a rally. Perhaps in this case it would have made sense to tie it to the case of Bitarch himself. Like, if you want to be unrestrained in your expressions while communicating on VK and not have anything happen to you for it—here is a set of tools to satisfy this urgent need.
And so it goes: all it took was to look at the material of a favorite channel from the outside, and instead of an advertisement, it turned into a critical review.
I am pleased to present a new video from Libertarian Band — the guys have started the long-awaited series on the tools of agorism. And although I no longer write scripts for them, they are doing a great job, which I am very happy about.
The video provides a historical introduction to encryption and how this entirely state-driven affair suddenly led to cryptocurrencies—tools for liberation from the state—and concludes with recommendations on how to use them.
Libertarian Band suddenly delighted us with a bonus New Year’s video, in which they examine the question mentioned in the title. Someone in the team is clearly a fan of Bazhenov, because the analysis is conducted from the perspective of economic mainstream. Thus, most of the video consists of discussions on how profitable holidays are for the state economy, which has a very indirect relation to ancap. However, in any case, such a video is clearly better than my dismal year-end review yesterday, and the conclusions drawn in the video are quite correct.
Towards the end of the year, Libertarian Band finally put out the final video of the cycle on violence. It turned out to be somewhat relaxed and encouraging, just what is needed at the end of December. The idea is that yes, violence is certainly a problem, but it is a problem for many, and many stand to benefit from solving it. And since it looks technically solvable, and since both the goal and the means exist, it will, of course, be solved.
I have two main grievances with the entire cycle. First, it is quite abstract. The problem of violence in general is like the problem of poverty in general. People are more concerned with their personal safety and personal well-being, and discussing macro-parameters significantly reduces engagement. Second, the postulated division between self-defense and revenge is largely artificial. Accordingly, arguing that the former is virtuous while the latter is not will inevitably spark disputes: why exactly is it not, and where is the line? For instance, I am hit, I hit back, and I am told that I am wrong, that revenge is bad, and that I should use non-violent methods. I claim it was self-defense, and I am told that it cannot be self-defense if I have already been hit. Why is a one-second difference in the exchange of blows acceptable, but a one-day difference is not?
Nevertheless, personal safety correlates with the overall level of violence, just as personal well-being correlates with the overall level of poverty, and non-violent methods of conflict resolution are very effective in a vast number of cases. So, for the time being, the adepts of the approach promoted in this cycle remain my allies. Specifically, exactly until the general obsession with this approach reduces my own personal safety, and that is still a long way off.
The team I previously had the honor of representing has released their latest video, partially based on my script, which in turn was based on Bitarch’s article of the same name. On boosty, I posted a whole series of iterations showing how the script evolved. The next video is already terra incognita; my work is not involved there, and I am curious to see what they come up with. If it turns out well, who knows, perhaps I will be able to hand over my main text channel to someone over time.
Readers are wondering why Bitarch’s share on my channel has grown so sharply. It’s quite simple: he purchased a subscription for such publications for 5,000 rubles per month. These terms turned out to be more convenient for me than pondering every time whether or not to post a particular piece of material he suggested for free. Similarly, I guaranteed to answer questions accompanied by donations, while all others will be answered as I can.
By the way, speaking of questions. I want to test a certain model. I have created a separate subscription level on boosty for 50 rubles a month. Subscribers will see all the questions I receive and will be able to mark in the comments which ones they would be interested in seeing answered. In this way, even if a question was not accompanied by a donation, a paid subscriber can promote it (Of course, subscribers of more expensive plans will also have this capability). As we know from economic theory, it is through the pricing structure that real human needs are determined. Let’s see how this works in our case.
The key idea in the video is that the balance of violence potential is ensured not only by possibly equal armament—this is unattainable, as players with more resources will easily win an arms race. The factor of solidarity is far more important. The willingness to not allow violence to be used not only against oneself, but also against others—if one can speak of a silver bullet regarding the construction of a non-violent society—then this is the closest candidate.
Of course, the video is not reduced to this single thought; I won’t retell it in full, watch it for yourself. The technical quality of the video continues to grow, but don’t forget to feed the studio with your donations. A critical dependence on one large sponsor strongly disrupts the balance of the potential for independence in decisions, if one may put it that way.
