Surely agorism will lead economy closer to mutualism than "anarcho"-capitalism
Discussion
I agree with the other person that agorism is just another term for it. Was my initial thought when first hearing about agorism. Ancap and market anarchism arent really the same thing. Ancap has that wierd 'corporate' and hyper-profit motivation aspect, whereas market anarchism is just the natural order imo. Kids selling lemonade. The flea market in the park. A neighborhood yard sale. Farmers markets. Etc. I mean perhaps my understanding is wrong, but this is how I view it.
Large multinational corporations will be very impractical to exist in an anarchist economy (they won't be "prohibited" by anarchists of course). Most people will be self-employed or work in some kind of coop
Oh I dont think they can possibly exist as we now know them. The 'Corp' is a legalese protection racket. No state, no corp as a person. No corp aa a person, the actual people are responsible for any malfeasance and crimes.
That's exactly what i argue with ancaps, LLC business are more product from statism than anything related to free market
Anacap's an odd thing. I found it appealing at first, but the more I read about it or listened to people speaking on it, the less I liked the as a whole. Seems a pure ancap community / society would just be cut throat profit driven assholes to be honest.
Yes, it will probably start with mutualism, but to scale to a revolutionary level where the informal market outgrows the formal market you need anarcho capitalism (welcome to reality). Here's why:
1) Dealing in the informal market is often illegal, so for a worker to his own capital goods and only deal with community members is the safest to not get shut down
2) Exchanging goods and services based on the labor theory of value is possible, and probably even preferable among friends / community members. I give you one hour of my time, for one our of your time, even if my time is worth double in the market, because we are friends. (The subjective value of the good + the value of helping a friend makes the exchange still worth it, even if the product alone isn't worth it)
So yes, mutualism probably works best on a small scale and under a strong state.
However, if the state weakens and the paralell economy wants to compete with the formal economy, mutualism fails:
1) Operating on a bigger scale becomes safer because enforcement is weaker, so division of labor becomes an important factor to compete. The capitalist providing the right capital goods is an important part of it.
2)To scale you have to deal with strangers, so you HAVE TO exchange based on subjective value instead of value based on labor. The added value of helping a friend isn't there, so the deal will suck for (at least) one of the two parties compared to a deal based on subjective value, simple because you use an improper price system. This will prevent the exchange from happening, and it will move back to the formal market.
But actually small scale mutualism is perfectly compatible with Anarcho Capitalism:
1) A worker owning his capital goods is just a worker and a capitalist at the same time
2) Like goods, things like friendship, community ect. have a subjective value. Rothbard describes how the same product from person A or person B can be different goods with different values if the relationship with them is different (A is a stranger, B a friend). If an exchange with the same 'labor value' takes place its still based on subjective value. It just means that the value of community is worth more than the lost value caused by the wrong valuation method (labor theory of value) for the one that is disadvantage by the deal.
"1) A worker owning his capital goods is just a worker and a capitalist at the same time"
Ironically this is what makes capitalism impossible under anarchy. Everyone being their "own boss" then there will be no bosses at all...
No, under anarchy you can choose what to do with your capital goods, that's the point of freedom.
Having other people use your capital goods and sharing in the increased productivity is often simply the best option for both parties, so this will happen more often. It's just not efficient if every worker has to build his capital with hard work for many years before he can start working more efficiently with capital goods.
Imagine A is delivering packages with his bicycle (capital good) in his own village. He can do 100 packages a day. Now B gives him the option to rent his car (better capital good). Now he can do 1000 packages per day over 7 villlages.
This is obviously a win / win / win situation. A makes more money because he is much more efficient, even after paying the rent of the car, B gets a passive income on his capital because of the extra earning potential he provided and everyone in the 7 villages get their post faster and cheaper.
And somehow socialists manage to paint B as an 'evil capitalist who is exploiting the worker'.
How long would this worker have to go on his bicycle through the rain, heat and storm for a low income before he could affort to get this better capital good (car) by himself? Ten year? Twenty year?
You see how much this 'evil capitalist' (B) adds to the improvement of the worker (A) his life? Is that exploitation? It's just the most effective way for free people to cooperate to make everyone best off. That's why it will flourish under anarchism.
I think the notion that 'capitalists are evil exploiters' comes from the fact that it's very visible for the public that the workers are working their asses off, while the capitalist 'is doing nothing' and get even more money.
I think they don't realise that the capitalist isn't making the worker 20 or 30% more productive, but 10 or 100 times. The capital provider (capitalist) actually caused 90 to 99% of the productivity, that's why the market rewards him more.
Think about a taxi driver without a car, a magazine worker without a fork truck, a fishingman without a boat or even an accountant without a calculator. Because people don't realise this, it's mostly invisible for the public.
So people see the worker work hard, while the not working capitalist gets more money. A perfect issue for politicians to gaslight people that the capitalist is evil and tax the hell out of him, and socialism is born.
P.S. this all is about a free market, once the capitalist start to lobby and use the state to get unfair advantages, he's indeed evil. But this isn't capitalism, it's statism / fascism.
You can reconcile the two when you recognize that the important distinction is between coercive collectives and voluntary ones, not collectivism vs. individualism.