The below "Statement on Agorism-21" was written by Jospeh
Miranda. Its purpose is to bring Libertarianism into
the 21st century. This is not the final word. Constructive comments
are welcomed and we look forward to taking this statement to a wider
audience.
* The Dilemma
Libertarianism as it is today understood is a product of the
mid-20th century: the era of Rothbard, Rand, Hayek, von Mises,
Friedman and many others. They were operating within a framework
characterized by:
* The rule of
totalitarian states in much of the world.
* The relative
weakness of capitalism versus the regulatory state.
* A wide scale
labor movement which kept checks on management-capital and was a
political force in its own right.
Events of the last three decades have
overthrown these assumptions:
* The collapse
of communism as a state vector (USSR, PRC).
* The growth of
cartels in especially critical sectors such as information technology
(IT).
* The rise of
globalism superseding national boundaries and overthrowing 20th
century national economics.
* The Goal
The goal of Agorism-21 is a free society. What stands in the way of
attaining a free society today (2021)?
* The state does not protect the basic precepts of a free
society: enforcement of contracts, protection of lives and property,
defense against foreign foes.
* The alleged
private sector is no better. Cartelized corporations have suppressed
the market (via monopolies, economic manipulations, bribery of public
officials), have intervened in the political process (via media
propaganda/disinformation, buying out politicians), repression (via
de-platformings, prison-industrial complex). What has made this all
the more dangerous is that the centralization of information
technologies (IT) under cartels working alongside state agencies
involves control of a critical sector which amounts to a public
utility.
The classical alternative to corporate
power has been government regulation: anti-trust legislation,
regulatory agencies, taxation of income. These measures have had
varied success but there are objections:
The first is that using the government to
regulate the corporate sector gives power to a bureaucracy which is de
facto repressive and works not in the interest of that amorphous body
called “the public” but of whatever interests can buy it out.
The question is raised, “Who can you
trust in the government?” The rejoinder is “Who can you trust
in the corporate sector?”
This is the trap of the false
alternatives.
The second objection is that the
distinctions between the state and corporate sectors have been largely
dissolved by the rise of what is termed often the
“managerial-technocratic state” (cf James Burnham's
Managerial Revolution; Robert Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy),
the interlocking system uniting the government and corporate sectors
which has been in place since at least World War II and has expanded
to include the information and academic sectors. While there is ritual
denunciation of the so-called
military-industrial-(infotainment-prison-academic-etcetera) complex,
there is little in the way of understanding its full implications.
The fact that in the 21st century IT
corporations work alongside state intelligence agencies for
surveillance and attacks on dissidents ought to give cause for
consideration. Effectively, the IT cartels with their partners in the
state are the ruling Complex.
Whether this Complex is the product of
the deliberate actions of state-corporate actors, or a result of the
technological necessities of an industrial-information economy is
irrelevant.
What is relevant is that they form the
new ruling class.
A case in point is the Drug War, in which
the government and corporations have worked in a self named
Partnership to involve a vast expansion in the incarceration system,
drug testing, and media anti-drug propaganda. Similar partnerships are
to be seen today with government, corporations and non-governmental
(but often clandestinely financed) organizations cooperating to
suppress dissent domestically and expand the reach of their combined
power via worldwide Color Revolutions.
One cannot ignore the nature of the
modern university in all this. While in the 20th century a claim could
be made that university campuses were the scene of a free exchange of
ideas and real dissident movements, today they are little more than
fronts for Complex sponsored indoctrination and repression of real
dissenters, with stage managed “protests” being confined to Complex
approved ideologies.
To this might is added the rise of
globalism which has removed political decision making from the local
and national levels and transferred it to an array of transnational
economic bodies, foundations with links to both the state and
corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGO), transcontinental
military alliances, and let us not leave out the new class of
oligarchs who finance much of this. The line between the “state” or
the “corporations” has disappeared.
Once cannot declare one is
“anti-government” or “anti-state” while at the same time supporting a
corporate sector which is one aspect of the duopoly. Nor can one
declare that one is opposed to the “corporate media” when that media
is a front for state propaganda.
Given that the IT corporations can de
facto declare states of emergencies and expel people from social
media, to include national politicians, we might ask, “Who is
really the government?”
Given that the IT corporations have
participated in “Color Revolutions” worldwide on a level which exceeds
that of military interventions, we might again ask, “Who is really
the government?”
Consider the absurdity of the argument
that “only the government can censor speech” when IT cartels
can deplatform millions of people without the slightest due process or
appeal. And on top of this, IT corporations, as well as the financial
sector and mainstream media, cooperate with law enforcement to track
down dissidents. This “outsourcing of repression” has become
the new mode of suppressing dissent.
In this environment, 20th century
libertarianism has become an ideological justification for corporate
cartel power which in turn is the power of the Complex and thus the
State.
If the march of globalism continues, then
the world will be subsumed into a Universal Homogeneous State.
The only way this setup can be justified
is via increasingly convoluted ideological rationalizations.
Some examples: management directed drug
testing, workplace indoctrination, terminating employment for
political statements made outside the workplace; when libertarians
claim these practices are part of voluntary relation between labor and
management, they are perceived as supporting the power of the
corporations which in turn means the power of the Complex.
Libertarianism is thereby discredited. Moreover, convoluted
ideological rationalizations are a symptom of a Movement which has
lost contact with reality.
* An End to Cargo Cults
Libertarians too often have a
quasi-religious faith in what is termed the Market.
The basic idea is that if one sits back
and does nothing, then amorphous economic forces will fulfill human
needs. And when the desired results do not occur, libertarians blame
it on even more amorphous forces of government interference.
Really, this is an excuse for doing
nothing and thus playing into the hands of the Complex.
It is a cargo cult mentality which ignores
the reality of cartels in suppressing competition through various
methods, such as denying access to payment processors or via control
of the courts.
To reiterate: while in the 20th century
one could reasonably refer to the State as the primary element of
repression, in the 21st century it has been superseded by what is
termed here the Complex.
Therefore, the dead hand of the 20th
century must be discarded.
What is being discarded here is the false
dichotomy between what were once termed “capitalism” and “socialism.”
What is being discarded here is the
division of politics into left-wing and right-wing labels.
What is being discarded here is
theoretical debate.
What is being advocated here is a
Third Way.
* The Third Way
There is a Third Way: the organization of independent networks which
can advocate for the interests of liberty. This is self-organization.
The objective here is not to beg for
access to the existing social media apparatus, but to create
alternative networks beyond the control of the state-cartel Complex
or, indeed, of even megalomaniac insurgent forces.
Such organizations can include deep web
online networks, labor syndicates, free speech advocates, 2nd
Amendment proponents, consumer groups, legal defense fronts,
individual cybernetic advocates, artist cooperatives, flash
demonstrations, and so forth.
They can (and this is critical) form
counter-economic networks to build alternative technologies. This
means peer-to-peer communications, block chains, alternative media,
and more so forth. This would circumvent the current IT cartels. More
critically, this would shift the mindset away from reliance on
centralized structures to decentralized networks.
For example: the response of dissidents of
Complex directed deplatforming of dissidents is not to plead for
government regulation, but to organize alternative networks for
communications and finance, as well as taking actions to swarm Complex
institutions with protests exposing their contradictions.
We might note the success of the
Zapatistas in their netrocentric non-kinetic operations in Mexico in
the 1990s as one example. Or the early 2021 GameStop(tm) campaign
against Wall Street. There is the realm of next generation information
tactics in their approach to a contest for ideas, culture and visions
of the future. The advocate in this agora becomes the activist for
liberty.
* Counter-Infonomics
If “control of the means of production” was the great
revolutionary goal of the 20th century then “control of the means
of information” is the frontier for the 21st.
To oppose the state without simultaneously
opposing the cartels is a path for surrender to an oligarchic Complex
which has demonstrably been antagonistic to freedom. To oppose the
cartels without simultaneously opposing the state means surrendering
to totalitarianism.
In the 20th century the goal of the
underground economy was the production of good and services outside
the regulatory-taxation apparatus, or Counter-Economy. In the 21st,
the goal is the creation of alternative IT technologies and networks:
for communications, for media, for finance, for creating larger
networks.
Let us term these alternatives as
Counter-Infonomics.
* Agorism-21
Agorism means the market but not simply the trade of goods and
services at agreed upon prices without third party interference. The
agora is also the exchange of ideas, of culture, of visions of the
future. In the information age, such technologies as the “internet”,
“social media”, “online banking” etcetera are not a luxury or a
commodity. They are the foundations for 21st century freedom.
The long game is to create an alternative
free society.
Agorism-21 advocates for:
Counter-Complex: opposition to both the
state and corporate oligarchy.
Counter networks: virtual and real world
voluntary associations free of the Complex.
Counter-communications: alternative
technologies such as peer-to-peer and also non-technological
alternatives such as in-person meetings and traditional media (print,
shortwave radio, etc).
Counter-economics: alternative currencies
(such as Bitcoin(tm) as well as barter and other realworld
transactions.
Counter-politics: voting is seen as a
front in a wider struggle; vote strategically for selected candidates
to undermine the legitimacy of the Complex's bought off politicians.
Counter cancel vulture: support for people
whose employment or businesses have been terminated for their
political expressions.
Counter-repression: use of lawfare,
swarming info, etc, against online and real world censorship and
deplatforming.
Counter culture: creation of alternative
forms of culture apart from Complex manufactured propaganda and
commodified entertainment.
The goal is to create an Agora which
ranges transnationally wherever people network for liberty.
The slogan for the 21st century: “Don't forget to unplug the
Complex.”
|