In Defense of Anagorism

political economy in the non-market, non-state sector

Can anagorism survive panarchy?

By panarchy we mean pluralism in anarchist ideology, or the coexistence of different and perhaps conflicting non-authoritarian ways of life. More to the point, can anagorism succeed in a world that contains anarcho-capitalism? For this purpose I define success as independence. My optimism is generally so guarded that I assume the odds are against anarchy in any sense being achieved during my lifetime—but I think the less utopian forms such as propertarianism and agorism are more likely to become part of my reality, so it is important to me to keep the anagorist dream alive—do what I can to make sure the revolution doesn’t stop there.

Total independence, like utopia itself, may be a non-option, or as I prefer to say, an asymptotic goal. A good strategy to start may be closure seeking, or making a non-competitive “game” of seeing “how low can we go” with respect to minimizing interactions with decidedly propertarian sectors of society, be it the actually existing business sector, or for-profit entities existing in some future state of anarchy. But what other strategies are available? One is economic minimalism, or re-categorizing supposed necessities as luxuries, but reliance on that strategy alone would be a trap. My idea of the ultimate luxury is the luxury of not being in it for the money, whatever “it” is.

Independence from business entities, like independence from government, consists of ability to fend for oneself. The point behind anagorism is to minimize the need to fend for oneself, in both the martial and commercial spheres, at least to the extent that such strategy and one-upcrittership is a burden on individuals. This presents a strategic weakness for the anagorist community as a whole, as its capacity of collective self defense capabilities, or economic independence capabilities, at some level, draws on the competence of its members. Anagorism does not seek to hobble the individual! Anagorism has the competing goals of maximizing ability and minimizing non-elective challenge. It is not the only ideology with competing goals, but higher ideals do tend to make for harder tradeoffs. We should use our more exacting (or less realistic) ideals as an elective challenge to develop the skills necessary to fend for ourselves, and to produce at least some of the outcomes of business (in the form of products) without the methods of business.

Comments

3 responses to “Can anagorism survive panarchy?”

  1. Gian Piero de Bellis Avatar

    Panarchy in actual fact is a methodology and certainly not an ideology. So the question if anagorism can survive panarchy doesn’t seem to me appropriate. It is like asking: can anagorism survive freedom of choice? Clearly, the question should be: can anagorism (or any other ism) survive the lack of freedom of choice?
    Best regards.

  2. n8chz Avatar

    Oh, but whether anagorism can survive freedom of choice is precisely what I was asking, in my own roundabout way. Anagorism has no quarrel with anyone and will peacefully coexist with anything. The question is whether it can remain true to its principles and not be sucked into something other than itself, or put another way, whether anagorism ‘can hold its own.’ I stand by referring to panarchy as pluralism rather than Freedom Of Choice Itself. The tone of much of panarchist rhetoric comes across to me as ‘let’s perform an experiment to demonstrate that only anarcho-capitalism is workable.’ Please forgive me if my impressions are mistaken.

    1. Gian Piero de Bellis Avatar

      To equate panarchy with anarcho-capitalism is not appropriate. Panarchy is a methodology suitable for everyone in view of making voluntary experiments in personal and social organization. To limit it to anarcho-capitalism (as somebody tries to do) is to miss totally the point.
      All the best.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *