Agorism: The Economics of Revolt

How counter-economics drains the power of globalism

Michael Kumpmann examines Samuel Konkin III’s idea of counter-economics and its potential relevance for today’s struggles against globalist power.

Members of anti-globalist movements from the right and the left, as well as proponents of the Fourth Position, often attempt to stop the globalists by political means. This has frequently led to only modest success. The political systems of the West are in the hands of the globalists, so any party that wants to be recognized within such a system is forced to make compromises with the “enemy.” Therefore, for the resistance, politics usually leaves at most the option of trying a few small reformist measures, without being able to change anything fundamental.

So politics can be forgotten long-term as a force for reform. The New Right recommends the area of (mostly sub- and youth-) culture as the “strategic field of metapolitics,” but that still tends to amount to providing support for politics and especially for election campaigns. Therefore, there ought to be ways to supplement the existing New Right politics/metapolitics scheme with means that do not directly aim at a formal transfer of power, but instead undercut the state and its power.

One of the anarchist variants of the First Political Theory could help here: agorism, conceived by Samuel Konkin III (from Greek agora = market), also called counter-economics. Agorism (which stood between liberalism, left-anarchism, and the New Left) is, broadly speaking, a form of anarchism and rests on a simple principle: market actors who collaborate with the state are to be rejected, and the more an actor comes into conflict with the state, the more “sympathetic” they are. So a classic friend-enemy distinction.

This could be adapted to a Fourth Position as follows: “Market participants and structures that collaborate with the globalists (for example, censorship firms like Facebook and Google) are to be rejected. But actors who are in conflict with the globalists are good. That can include black markets, but also, for instance, African farmers who refuse to buy expensive Monsanto-patented GMO seed.”

The agorist strategy can be summarized as supporting non-state or counter-state parallel structures in order to drain energy from the state. Agorists like to talk about “black markets.” That emphasis is due to a weakness in the First Political Theory, which views all social interaction as a form of market. Religious structures and other forms of association that are not aimed at buying and selling can also be agoristic, insofar as they in some way oppose the state. The goal is to have a structure that is not controlled by the given state, but that nevertheless wields more influence than that state. This leads to the following irony: totally free markets as a means to weaken the political power of liberal states.

Perhaps one can describe the agorist strategy as the economic equivalent of what the partisan represents in military terms. At the same time, it is an economic variant of the leftist idea to use elements that are more or less undesirable to the state ideology as instruments of power (see, for example, Herbert Marcuse).

An example that shows agoristic parallel structures can bring political success is clearly the New Left. From the hippie with a taste for forbidden substances to the Greens and certain sexual minorities. One does not need to approve of this, but it shows that such movements contain political potential. It is also well known that Limonov liked to move in socially “marginal” circles and forge alliances there. Both cases show that agorism contains political power potential. One can also see some strategies of European Islamic migrants and their “parallel societies” as examples.

North Korea now tolerates many black markets (called jangmadang) to some degree and even gives them official places. Through this, the country can also circumvent Western sanctions. Gabriele d’Annunzio’s Free State of Fiume likewise survived only as long as black markets kept it viable. Otherwise it would have been destroyed much sooner.

What advantages would agorism have? First: you would have a direct metapolitical connection. Things that are illegal, on the verge of legalization, or under legal attack often have a certain subculture around them. On the left, for example, the entheogen/drug scenes, and on the right the whole Second-Amendment/militia complex in the USA. By pursuing an agorism strategy, one can influence these subcultures and build connections. People like the hippie philosopher Terence McKenna or Ernst Jünger also show that there is a surprisingly large potential for a synthesis of “entheogen scenes” and traditionalist thought.

Furthermore, through agorism one not only builds a political structure but an economic infrastructure that can channel money to political actors or NGOs. Today’s “liberalism 2.0” is not the primacy of the economy but a dangerous synthesis of politics, business, and technocratic sociology. Therefore the “white market” can quickly be used to harm political actors. This is visible in, for example, the threat from antifa & Co. to make dissenters lose their jobs. But also in cases like accounts being repeatedly frozen for people such as Martin Sellner. If supporters of a Fourth Political Theory build their own parallel structures, one could block such measures. The most successful example of such a strategy is definitely Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. But things like Telegram and other means of communication are also such parallel structures.

In the event of a possible mega-catastrophe that would bring the Western system down in one blow (a scenario discussed by some on the left and right, e.g., Terence McKenna and Guillaume Faye, under terms like “convergence of catastrophes” or “Timewave Zero”), a successful agorism would already have a parallel structure ready to step in quickly. That would be a strategic factor of power and at the same time win public approval. An example is Japan, where after natural disasters the yakuza often move in first to help with reconstruction. That gives the yakuza much political influence, sympathy among the people, and makes it difficult for the state to eliminate them. Another example is Casa Pound in Italy and their help for the poor and homeless. In liberalism 2.0, there is the tactic of pushing activists belonging to vulnerable minority groups — through sub-groups like neurodiversity or parts of Black Lives Matter — into state dependency via pseudo-aid programs, and then using these groups as assets for political goals (sometimes called “bioleninism”). Such efforts could easily be undermined by others through grassroots movements.

At the same time, agorism operates below the level of politics. Black traders do not care about fascism, communism, or liberalism. Therefore an agorist does not have to choose a side. No one can dismiss someone as a “commie pig” or “evil Nazi” since politics plays no role.

Moreover, because there is no politics, results come faster. It would probably take centuries to millennia for the AfD or the FPÖ to demand the reintroduction of the traditional estate-based state described by Evola. An armed revolution is a dangerous undertaking and requires popular support that does not exist in that form. And a Russian military action would imply a potential nuclear war with the USA. But if a few people want to found an “Amish” settlement or something similar, they present the state with a fait accompli, and the Greens & Co. can complain but cannot change it. Many minorities, such as Old Believers or European Jews, were able to defend their traditions against extreme resistance through non-state parallel structures. Therefore agorism is strategically important for the preservation of tradition as well. If one could ever again find a “state-free no-man’s land” à la Kowloon in Hong Kong, one would have even excluded state power.

Of course: a white market is taxable. You can hate gender ideology, the Great Reset, wars to promote democracy in the Middle East, etc., as you like. Once you live in the West, you have to fund that mess with your tax money. Agorism creates markets with no taxes (or far fewer taxes). It thus drains energy from the opponent. And the fight against parallel structures consumes state resources.

The main danger of this strategy is that one creates something potentially uncontrollable, which can import both positive and negative elements into the system. For example, in the discussion about drugs. Ernst Jünger took LSD. Cannabis, ayahuasca, mushrooms, etc., have been used in many legitimate religious ceremonies around the world. But on the other hand one would not want to create an infrastructure that allows an uncontrollable influx of heroin or crystal meth.

Of course: becoming criminal puts people on the radar of state power. And one should not commit crimes anyway. For political activism, it is important to remain sufficiently under the radar of the state. Therefore it is far better to concentrate on legal activities, legal gray zones, or things that are close to legalization. Or, à la “Silk Road,” to do nothing directly oneself but only build infrastructure for others. Based on the principle: “Here is a platform. What you do with it is your responsibility.”

(Translated from the German)