Decentralization does not promise a flawless outcome or the ability to micromanage every detail, yet it remains a powerful strategy for dispersing power and reducing coercion. Even if the transition to a voluntary, distributed system unfolds in an imperfect way, it still limits large-scale harm far better than centralized authority. It is puzzling why there is reluctance to engage with present-day, bottom-up solutions that people are already creating, such as community-based networks, alternative currencies, and mutual aid initiatives. Agorists are not simply dreaming; they actively put their principles into practice by constructing parallel structures that reduce reliance on the state here and now.
It is not us who stand in the way of any genuine transformation, whether proletarian or otherwise. If you truly believe in a revolution of the proletariat, you will find no direct opposition from agorists, as the shift away from centralised, coercive structures is inevitable anyway.
The anti-market commune defies the only enforceable law – the law of nature. The basic organizational structure of society (above the family) is not the commune (or tribe or extended tribe or State) but the agora. No matter how many wish communism to work and devote themselves to it, it will fail. They can hold back agorism indefinitely by great effort, but when they let go, the ‘flow’ or ‘Invisible Hand’ or ‘tides of history’ or ‘profit incentive’ or ‘doing what comes naturally’ or ‘spontaneity’ will carry society inexorably closer to the pure agora.
And how, exactly, is an inferior system able to suppress a superior one?
Over time, as these parallel systems become more efficient and trustworthy, people naturally migrate toward them and the state’s influence begins to erode. It is not about confronting the state’s monopoly on force in a single decisive battle, but rather outmaneuvering it day by day, demonstrating in tangible ways that voluntary alternatives are more durable and harder to suppress than top-down structures. This shift has accelerated with recent technological breakthroughs which empower individuals and communities to coordinate on their own terms, further loosening the state’s grip.
They can hold back agorism indefinitely by great effort, but when they let go, the ‘flow’ or ‘Invisible Hand’ or ‘tides of history’ or ‘profit incentive’ or ‘doing what comes naturally’ or ‘spontaneity’ will carry society inexorably closer to the pure agora.
The profit incentive creates all sorts of collective action problems that cannot be addressed without a centralized authority. This is already a major problem and your approach would only make it worse.
The problem is externalities. Externalities are an economic term for when a particular action causes indirect effects, whether positive or negative. When a train station is built, businesses in the surrounding area become more profitable, yet the profit from this cannot be captured by the train itself, if the fares were that high, fewer people would use it and the benefits would be lost. When a factory emits pollution, the property values in the surrounding area plummet, and these costs are not borne by the factory owner.
Only though a centralized system can externalities be effectively managed. The pollution can be regulated or taxed, while public transit can be funded and run at a loss. This is particularly important in combating climate change, which has no profit incentive and therefore cannot be addressed through capitalism in any form.
Over time, as these parallel systems become more efficient and trustworthy, people naturally migrate toward them and the state’s influence begins to erode. It is not about confronting the state’s monopoly on force in a single decisive battle, but rather outmaneuvering it day by day, demonstrating in tangible ways that voluntary alternatives are more durable and harder to suppress than top-down structures. This shift has accelerated with recent technological breakthroughs which empower individuals and communities to coordinate on their own terms, further loosening the state’s grip.
I think you misunderstood my question. How is it that the supposedly inferior system of centralization won out over decentralization in the first place? If decentralization is so much more efficient and resilient, then why don’t we have it already?
Communities will inevitably exhibit some degree of local centralization to coordinate efforts of course, individuals and groups can still seek restitution from polluters who contaminate or damage their land or resources. They can also organize boycotts, leverage grassroots reputation networks, employ social pressure, and engage in direct negotiations to compel cleaner production methods.
Modern technological breakthroughs greatly expand how communities can address externalities and finance large projects. These developments weaken the state’s monopoly on authority and create avenues for voluntary collaboration on a scale that was previously impractical. Decentralization remains embryonic today not because it is inherently less capable, but because coercive structures have historically worked to stifle or outlaw alternatives. During humanity’s transition from tribal living to centralized states, there was little foresight to protect decentralized methods of organization, allowing emerging authorities to entrench their power.
Decentralization does not promise a flawless outcome or the ability to micromanage every detail, yet it remains a powerful strategy for dispersing power and reducing coercion. Even if the transition to a voluntary, distributed system unfolds in an imperfect way, it still limits large-scale harm far better than centralized authority. It is puzzling why there is reluctance to engage with present-day, bottom-up solutions that people are already creating, such as community-based networks, alternative currencies, and mutual aid initiatives. Agorists are not simply dreaming; they actively put their principles into practice by constructing parallel structures that reduce reliance on the state here and now.
It is not us who stand in the way of any genuine transformation, whether proletarian or otherwise. If you truly believe in a revolution of the proletariat, you will find no direct opposition from agorists, as the shift away from centralised, coercive structures is inevitable anyway.
Over time, as these parallel systems become more efficient and trustworthy, people naturally migrate toward them and the state’s influence begins to erode. It is not about confronting the state’s monopoly on force in a single decisive battle, but rather outmaneuvering it day by day, demonstrating in tangible ways that voluntary alternatives are more durable and harder to suppress than top-down structures. This shift has accelerated with recent technological breakthroughs which empower individuals and communities to coordinate on their own terms, further loosening the state’s grip.
The profit incentive creates all sorts of collective action problems that cannot be addressed without a centralized authority. This is already a major problem and your approach would only make it worse.
The problem is externalities. Externalities are an economic term for when a particular action causes indirect effects, whether positive or negative. When a train station is built, businesses in the surrounding area become more profitable, yet the profit from this cannot be captured by the train itself, if the fares were that high, fewer people would use it and the benefits would be lost. When a factory emits pollution, the property values in the surrounding area plummet, and these costs are not borne by the factory owner.
Only though a centralized system can externalities be effectively managed. The pollution can be regulated or taxed, while public transit can be funded and run at a loss. This is particularly important in combating climate change, which has no profit incentive and therefore cannot be addressed through capitalism in any form.
I think you misunderstood my question. How is it that the supposedly inferior system of centralization won out over decentralization in the first place? If decentralization is so much more efficient and resilient, then why don’t we have it already?
Communities will inevitably exhibit some degree of local centralization to coordinate efforts of course, individuals and groups can still seek restitution from polluters who contaminate or damage their land or resources. They can also organize boycotts, leverage grassroots reputation networks, employ social pressure, and engage in direct negotiations to compel cleaner production methods.
Modern technological breakthroughs greatly expand how communities can address externalities and finance large projects. These developments weaken the state’s monopoly on authority and create avenues for voluntary collaboration on a scale that was previously impractical. Decentralization remains embryonic today not because it is inherently less capable, but because coercive structures have historically worked to stifle or outlaw alternatives. During humanity’s transition from tribal living to centralized states, there was little foresight to protect decentralized methods of organization, allowing emerging authorities to entrench their power.