“genuine” anarcho capitalists (who arent grifting or trying or are otherwise not just interested in new political concepts like anarchism) dont know what they believe in and no one really helps them out because its easier to make fun of them (valid, but making fun of something isnt how you fix things). They are in a transitionary phase between liberalism, fascism, and socialism. They started from one of those places, are becoming dissillusioned to it, and are opening up to ideas of the other two.
Now you know how to talk to an anarcho capitalist and sway them to your side. Find out where they are coming from, and appeal to whichever side you want them to go to (or back if you want them to see the err in their ways). This also works in favor of fascism btw so if you dont help the anarcho capitalists, they will, and they are.
Would the capitalism we currently have be the same in anarcho-capitalism? Corporations wouldn’t exist without government. Legal tender laws would not exist.
Capitalism is inherently incompatible with statelessness. You need some kind of police or military force to enforce private property and contracts. In anarcho-capitalism, that force doesn’t disappear. Those with more money would be able to buy more protection, better courts, and stronger enforcement, they would increasingly turn wealth directly into power.
What we understand as a corporation today wouldn’t vanish without the state; it would reappear as large, hierarchical firms held together by contracts, private security, and internal command structures. In practice, these would look less like free associations and more like dictatorial private governments, exercising control over workers and communities without even minimal public accountability.
Removing legal tender laws or corporate charters doesn’t eliminate capitalism’s core dynamics: private ownership of productive resources, wage labor, and profit extraction. Anarcho-capitalism keeps those intact while stripping away any collective checks on them. From an anarchist anti-capitalist perspective, that’s not anarchism, thats straight up the replacement of public authority with unaccountable private power.
That’s already the way the world works today, and violent people will certainly continue to exist, though some of the incentive to be violent won’t exist without the ability to accumulate infinite wealth. But the key difference is the state won’t forbid you from organizing community self-defense as needed.
depends on which anarcho capitalist you are talking to. I know many former ancaps were free marketeers before going more socialist routes like market anarchism and mutualism. Think like Kevin Carson, a former bleeding heart libertarian, now probably a mutualist. These kinds of ancaps would see todays capitalism as a farce of the free market—they dont believe at all that capitalism is a market free of state sponsored racism, oppression, or violence etc. They believe a market free of state sponsored violence (they call current capitalism crony capitalism but whatever) would look more egalitarian.
Capitalism would be completely different under anarcho-capitalism.
I think ancaps are for using dispute resolution organizations to resolve conflicts and for a polycentric law system. Legit cryptocurrencies and legit DeFi could work well in an anarchistic society as a decentralized currency system.
There are no real core ancap theories. Unlike leftists which you can 9 times out of 10 just start with the observations of marx and go from there without necessarily supporting his solutions, ancaps don’t have a core theory they can revolve around which is why often they just stick with the libertarian “non aggression principle” and go from there.
We should be against the concentration of political and economic power. We should try to expand both positive and negative freedoms of the individual as much as possible for as many people as possible.
“genuine” anarcho capitalists (who arent grifting or trying or are otherwise not just interested in new political concepts like anarchism) dont know what they believe in and no one really helps them out because its easier to make fun of them (valid, but making fun of something isnt how you fix things). They are in a transitionary phase between liberalism, fascism, and socialism. They started from one of those places, are becoming dissillusioned to it, and are opening up to ideas of the other two.
Now you know how to talk to an anarcho capitalist and sway them to your side. Find out where they are coming from, and appeal to whichever side you want them to go to (or back if you want them to see the err in their ways). This also works in favor of fascism btw so if you dont help the anarcho capitalists, they will, and they are.
Would the capitalism we currently have be the same in anarcho-capitalism? Corporations wouldn’t exist without government. Legal tender laws would not exist.
Capitalism is inherently incompatible with statelessness. You need some kind of police or military force to enforce private property and contracts. In anarcho-capitalism, that force doesn’t disappear. Those with more money would be able to buy more protection, better courts, and stronger enforcement, they would increasingly turn wealth directly into power.
What we understand as a corporation today wouldn’t vanish without the state; it would reappear as large, hierarchical firms held together by contracts, private security, and internal command structures. In practice, these would look less like free associations and more like dictatorial private governments, exercising control over workers and communities without even minimal public accountability.
Removing legal tender laws or corporate charters doesn’t eliminate capitalism’s core dynamics: private ownership of productive resources, wage labor, and profit extraction. Anarcho-capitalism keeps those intact while stripping away any collective checks on them. From an anarchist anti-capitalist perspective, that’s not anarchism, thats straight up the replacement of public authority with unaccountable private power.
How do enforce a lack of private property without a state? How do you prevent a capitalist system from sprouting up in socialism without a state?
Same way animals do. You don’t need to enforce something that doesn’t exist in the first place.
If there’s no state to stop me from building a garden on some billionaire’s ranch, private property no longer exists.
How do you prevent someone from not taking ownership of something?
I believe I already answered this? There is no ownership without a state to enforce your claim.
So nothing then. If you want something then you take it, if you are more powerful. That sounds problematic.
That’s already the way the world works today, and violent people will certainly continue to exist, though some of the incentive to be violent won’t exist without the ability to accumulate infinite wealth. But the key difference is the state won’t forbid you from organizing community self-defense as needed.
depends on which anarcho capitalist you are talking to. I know many former ancaps were free marketeers before going more socialist routes like market anarchism and mutualism. Think like Kevin Carson, a former bleeding heart libertarian, now probably a mutualist. These kinds of ancaps would see todays capitalism as a farce of the free market—they dont believe at all that capitalism is a market free of state sponsored racism, oppression, or violence etc. They believe a market free of state sponsored violence (they call current capitalism crony capitalism but whatever) would look more egalitarian.
Capitalism would be completely different under anarcho-capitalism. I think ancaps are for using dispute resolution organizations to resolve conflicts and for a polycentric law system. Legit cryptocurrencies and legit DeFi could work well in an anarchistic society as a decentralized currency system.
There are no real core ancap theories. Unlike leftists which you can 9 times out of 10 just start with the observations of marx and go from there without necessarily supporting his solutions, ancaps don’t have a core theory they can revolve around which is why often they just stick with the libertarian “non aggression principle” and go from there.
We should be against the concentration of political and economic power. We should try to expand both positive and negative freedoms of the individual as much as possible for as many people as possible.