I've seen a few usernames lately that reference #agorism, so I looked it up and find it interesting.. I'm curious how #agorists feel about wealth concentration and the power imbalance that creates. How do they deal with that? Do they believe in doing anything that would curtail their power? The wealthy clearly aren't going to voluntarily agree to limit their ability to become even more wealthy, and history has shown that the extremely wealthy will almost certainly disregard human life and consent in pursuit of more wealth. How does #agorist #philosophy guarantee things remain fully consensual despite the imbalanced power dynamic? Do they still see it as fully consensual when that power dynamic coerces the poorer individual into agreeing to something they wouldn't otherwise agree to?
Discussion
Nothing is ever guaranteed.
Why do you think everything has to be solved 100% and promised and guaranteed?
That's the (false) promise of democracy, communism and other socialist bullshit regimes.
You always have to do things you may not like, i.e. working, aquiring food, look for housing and medical care.
Nobody can solve that for you.
No plan is ever fool proof, but the one thing that I CAN guarantee is that, if left unchecked, wealth will concentrate, and once sufficiently concentrated, the wealthy will coerce us until they fully subjugate us. History shows the unethical among us will do this time and time and time again. Without some way to acknowledge and curtail that, I don't see any agorist community lasting long term. Wealth will concentrate, and it will be used to erode our ability to meaningfully consent until whether we consent or not is irrelevant, the will of the wealthy WILL be made manifest. With no response to that, agorism sounds like the most idealistic and, most importantly, *untenable* form of anarchy possible. It's regression to kingdoms with extra steps.
I assume, however, that agorists have put some thought into it. If so, what solutions have they found? If not, why don't they think power will consolidate and eventually disregard their consent or lack thereof?
Good questions. Agorists (and more broadly, anarchists) tend to not believe that their ideology needs to be widespread in order to work. Of course, it would be absolutely fantastic, but it is not yet realistic at this time in history (nor even going back to the days of early anarchists).
I think that we just busy ourselves with small-scale self employment/self-sufficiency, and voluntary activities/transactions with others who believe as we do,
while trying to minimize or avoid fiat transactions as much as possible, to the point that the greater economic picture is less important to our daily lives (though I don't speak for them all) and to keep moving forward the way we do, and only hope that future generations keep the tradition.
It is not for agorists to worry about or try to control the greater economy, but to keep up the tiny momentum of all the above in our own spaces and local communities. Nostr helps expand those into a larger community, but it's the same thing unless the world becomes orange-pilled and takes up a voluntary ideology/identity (which will hardly happen in our lifetime or even the next generations' lifetime).
It's like the amish or any other parralel society works.
Stay away from paying taxes as much as possible, be productive and that's it.
If you are productive, your comminty becomes wealthy.
There is no forced wealth concentration in a productive environment.
The state is already an armed gang and we are considered their taxslaves, this is already real today.
Your dystopia is already real.
If only they'd listen...
How can we be sure there's no wealth concentration in a productive environment? Modern societies manage to stay productive, and they most certainly experience a concentration of wealth.
The only way I see to avoid it is to consciously avoid creating an excess. Produce only what the community needs, then rest. Humanity does not seem to be well wired to deal with excess. Many may do well, but it only takes a small handful of people who don't to start scheming.
I think a lack of extreme excess is a key component in how these parallel communities survive and thrive. The Amish, for example, swear off many modern tools and amenities that would allow them to produce much more. They simply can't generate the excess wealth that would allow them to land on the radar of today's truly wealthy.
I don't think this really addresses my concern, though. My concern is not that economic circumstances will be damaging to these communities. My concern is that any one individual gaining excessive wealth also gains de facto power. Agorists can live in their communities unbothered just fine... Until that powerful individual decides they want more and have the means to get it. Once they have the wealth, maybe they use it to get an army, and we know at least some subset of the population is happy to enlist. Maybe they start using it to peacefully coerce people into agreeing to things they wouldn't normally because the rich guy has too much control over things they need like raw materials or critical tools.
Ultimately, it seems to me to fail to account for bad actors. Human nature and basic game theory practically guarantee that we'll always have to contend with them. Any system destined for success must acknowledge that and have some mechanism to keep them in check. As average individuals, their capacity for harm is minimal and maybe not too important to address, but as wealth concentrates and their power grows, their capacity to harm the community grows exponentially.
I have guns and enough know-how to make it extremely painful for anyone to try to take mine or hurt mine. I don't care about most power concentrations other than my own. I prefer to build a willing coalition of locals that can handle most anything that comes along. The amusing thing about most anarchists of all stripes is that they actively build more and better relationships than people who try to outsource everything to "da gubment."
I worry that a sufficiently wealthy individual can muster more force than any one community can resist. Your guns as an individual are no match for a thousand soldiers. Any local community can be outmatched. You may be able to handle most anything, but that's not all of everything, and it only takes one able conqueror.
For example, right now, today, if Jeff Bezos's wealth was all or mostly liquid funds and he fancied himself the next Alexander the Great, he could EASILY muster enough force to conquer individual communities. It'd be trivial. Bezos made a hell of a lot of money through mostly consensual agreements.
History also show us, that humans are capable of tremendous sacrifice for moral reasons, greater good etc.
So the theory (in very simple and short way) is, that without state monopoly there would exists counter balances in society.
Insurance companies, charities, communities, big family clans etc.
I don't see this as really any sort of solution. It's just a presupposition that we'll figure it out when the time comes. And notably, none of the examples you provide would limit wealth concentration, nor would they address the coersion that would lead to.
As the others said. It is not meant as some miraculous solution to everything.
Nobody ever said that. That's the area of state to promise everything to everyone.
I'm not looking for a guarantee, but there needs to be at least some attempt. Willfully ignoring the forces at work does not render you immune to them. It means you're utterly undefended from them. As it is, it feels like pretending it just won't be a problem when game theory dictates it 100% will be eventually.
I agree with that.
But I think the same game theory also dictates there will be many forces in play, opposing, having different interest etc.
I think you underestimate how huge role in anything in today's world play state monopoly, so applying today's logic/examples is a bit tricky.
For me the much bigger question is actually how to reduce state monopoly,, otherwise this is just nice theoretical exercise.
I think you're viewing things the wrong way around in terms of origin. The state doesn't give rise to the status quo, it protects it. Such a potent mechanism of social control requires power, and wealth is power. The wealthy created the first state, not vice versa.
Ultimately, protecting your rights is about maintaining the right power balance. If any one individual amasses too much wealth, they become increasingly capable of exerting their will on others until they're able to hire enough soldiers to monopolize violence and create a state. The vast majority of people may be well intentioned, but history shows there is ALWAYS a tiny percentage that is happy to seize power if they can and trample on the concept of consent.
This is why I'm asking these questions. Agorists want everything to be consensual, and that's a great ideal, but some people don't give a damn about consent, and there needs to be some acknowledgement of that. Power dynamics erode consent, so where do you draw the line, and how do you keep people from crossing it?
Well, I basically agree with you.
I do not have the answer.
Just a comment - sure the state was created as a tool for wealthy to rule. But nowadays the situation is far more complex (I wish we would be in situation of some early state in terms of politics, where it was quite clear, who is who a doing what and why :D).
The main question for me is how to make (even small things) less centralized, less monopolized etc.
In other words at this point, where state engages in every and all aspects of my life I don`t care about philosophical, hypothetical question about future in hundred year or so (or better not that much care).
Sure it is beneficial to discuss undelaying philosophy, but I`m not the right person for it, I take more pragmatic approach I guess.