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.
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.