Anarcho-capitalism Critique

Anarcho capitalism: This system as described is solely as non-aggressive principle for Voluntary transactions and an open market system to bolster those who want to generate Capital. It's backed by the NAP which is a moral or rather idealistic principle that there is no force upon another human. Now, as good as that sounds I'd like to pertain that thought on to real life scale. This series will break down anarcho capitalism as it pertains to various corners of society (education, workforce, growth as well as law and order.) First let's look at the means of how it's proposed to become a reality. Right now Capitalism (by definition Profit through private ownership) is a world market which connected various markets around the world so trade, growth and concentration of capital is achieved. A state is layered info 3 categories: CENTRAL BANKS, GOVERNMENT, ENFORCEMENT. So how would anarcho-capitalism be achieved whilst ridding those 3 categories and keeping the elites in power (since wealth can't be taken)?

 Well since The State is a capitalist creation which represents the rich in power and uses the money provided by Central banks which is also privately owned it'd be tricky, Revolution wouldn't be a choice since a real revolution is carried out by the Proletariat to eventually abolish Private property and control the means of production thus making the state a private extension of the private owners who run that state....In logic ancaps don't want to take from the oppressors, they just want to have momentary relief from their oppression. This dissonance from reality is troubling. Let's look at these 3 qualities and explain why these are not only necessary for capitalism but inevitable. Marxism explains that that the state consists ultimately of armed bodies of men: the army, police, courts and jails. Against the confused ideas of the anarchists, Marx argued that workers need a state to overcome the resistance of the exploiting classes. But that argument of Marx has been distorted by both the bourgeois and the anarchists. Marx spoke of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” which is merely a more scientifically precise term for “the political rule of the working class.”

Now, some confusion should be lifted before I continue. There are 2 forms of dictatorships, the Bourgeoisie dictatorship and Proletariat dictatorship. In a nutshell the difference is a bourgeoisie dictatorship is the rule of a few over many (feudalism, plutocracy, fascism) and a proletarian dictatorship is the rule of the entire working Proletariat. (Marxist-Leninist socialism, Paris Commune) Now, for Anarcho capitalism I ask how an Ancap society is to keep law and order, and how is it to defend itself since the concept of internationalism and altruism is lost amongst them? I have been met with no real reaction other than DRO's (a privately owned police force that requires a payment or "tax" to have protection), private courts which somehow are voluntary, everyone maintains a wage and since taxes are force to ancaps.. payment is necessary, and in terms of defense...it's bring your gun to war day...though they can't tell me how they'd be funded, organized, achieve weaponry and so on while remaining completely voluntary.

I'm thinking the word voluntary doesn't belong. But a government is needed, for capitalism (private ownership of the means of production and distribution for profit) in order to maintain the services they need. Let me explain why. Capitalism in its very essence is driven by one word, or rather a philosophy, Profit. Profit is treated by Capitalists like God by the religious. Now, this profit is reason for Progress, development and to a limited degree Qualities of human life (if you compare life by decades) this has never been denied by Marxists. What we deny is that this was due to natural phenomena like Anarcho-capitalists try and state. Markets are anything but natural, for it to be natural as claimed, nature would have to hold the means of production and distribution as well as reap the profit. However that is not the case, in capitalism the means of production and distribution are privately owned with nature at their expense. Markets need 5 things to be a market in capitalism: 1. Private ownership (as in one or few owners, shareholders etc...) 2. Private control of Natural resources 3. Competition (after the game is profit) and rivalries 4. Cheap Labour 5. Overproduction (supply and demand, Marginal cost etc..) That leads me to my theory as it pertains to Anarcho-capitalism or all that apply to it, Initial Market Theory.

The goals of this new theory are to show: A. That Markets have an initial point of creation B. That said markets provide opportunity for other markets (along the line of the universal expansion theory where the markets anarchistically spread and due to capitalist nature, concentrate) C. due to the expansion of markets, Government and taxes are needed to concentrate said profits Now as to the points on markets I pointed out, my theory directly correlates in the fact that Markets are not only initially anarchist (whilst a divvy of resources occur) but when "the dust settles" as they say we find that they are man made, driving competition and cheap labour. Government is not only necessary but it comes with the market it's a natural force that rises. The political direction and control exerciseover the actions of the members, citizens, orinhabitants of communities, societies, and states; The definition of Government..

Now, I bring this up because as markets rise in a capitalist society, there are rules that follow from it, Regulations for businesses, Prices (as they are affected by Supply and demand due to competition of other markets) and those rules, regulations, and thus power the market owners have, become a government. The government is a form of market as well in the fact that due to the IMT (Initial Market Theory) the owners of said Markets own the government. The government is not a boogeyman, it's a representation of interest for majority party. There are essentially 2 forms (tons of variations): The Representation of Capital and the Representation of Labour, in a capitalist society on all levels you have the former. In capitalism, the representation is there to dictate profit driven projects (as far as industry, agriculture) and social projects. They are there to adhere to laws and rules set by the Market owners (through lobbying, bribes, coercion) and by all mean protecting their interests.

To add perspective to my point, let's simply the start of Anarcho-capitalism and it's inevitable growth from the point of motion and matter. Before I start, I want to preclude this with a few known facts. A. Markets are man made B. Profit is solely driven through Private means C. Wealth is driven by Labour D. Competition is needed in capitalist growth and leads to concentration E. Profit is driven and grown through Cheap Labour Now, in anarcho capitalism, The motion is Capital, the Matter is the Private owners. When this society starts the motion has yet to be shifted... [authors note: I use matter and motion to explain the nature of anarcho capitalism since society, nature and progress would have to essentially be reset] The Motion would be forced to shift as Capital [buying] moves and starts taking up land and thus privately owning these resources. [Note: The reason it has the anarcho attachment is the scattering and compulsions of the buying or owning of land and resources since power has not yet been established]

Since I'm a Marxist-Leninist I view this in all 3 phases (dialectical, historical and philosophical) but motion needs force to shift, it also needs force to be maintained but in Capitalism there is a limit, since private ownership is the key and Profit is the goal, the motion can only peak and then due to the strain [Initial Market Theory in place] when the concentration through competition has peaked (where a small 1% or less) it either becomes autocratic or the more realistic option [note: Matter is derived in 2 parts when applied to Capitalism and Socialism; Majority and Minority] The majority (Proletariat) uses its force to shift the Motion (Capital) away from the Minority (Capitalists) and transcends the progress and as a whole continuing progress without the obsolete minority. Now, back to the growth of an ancap society, ancaps call for privatized everything, no taxes and zero intrusion. One important factor that puts these wants to rest is Capital, or rather The Concentration of capital. Progress in capitalism is driven by this goal due to competition of other markets [winners determined at the expense of the labour force, Marginal cost, over production, coercion not limited to spies, rival advertising, etc] and ownership over resources [not limited to monopolies, wars in certain instances, buyouts] and if government was removed, which it can't since I've established it's natural place with the Initial Market Theory , the NAP [which is only moral guidance and about as enforced as the bible] wouldn't exist and progress wouldn't be had.

Another important factor is currency...

CURRENCY....AND TAXES THAT FOLLOW In capitalism, Profit is the game and in order to achieve this there has to be currency. Anarcho capitalists again argue that since capitalism (profit through private ownership) is free and natural they argue that anything is currency.....they are confused with a barter economy. In capitalism, A form of currency has to be established for a society, privately created and regulated by a middle man to ensure fair practice for the owner and consumer. The reason capitalism needs 1 central currency [as far as 1 specific country or countries have] in order to keep track. Given that truth....there would be a need for a private bank (central) thus that currency would be privately made. Now, the factor Anarcho-capitalists miss is Labour. it's established that labour generates wealth so inherently, the labor force is entitled to the fruits of their labour. [Note: Capital is controlled by the Minority, Profit is driven at the expense of Labour..enter Surplus-value, Exploitation, cheap labour, slavery of all forms] so, a currency would have to be set and maintained as well as protected by a middle man (aka government) and since I established the job of a Government (Representation of Capital) as being in the interest of Capital. As far as infrastructure, public services and so on go, those use private resources, capitalist means but since they are used by society it's the people who have to pay. Hence taxes. Taxes are essentially a payback system for the Capitalists funding the projects the people need and use.

It's not as if the people save the money first and then roads and shit get built, these projects are called for by the public, the projects are done and then we get stuck with the bill. Ancaps, answer this. if the resources are privately owned (using the Initial Market Theory) how would infrastructures be built and maintained? how would they be funded? [Note: The only answer I've received, is that the owners of these markets would just do what is right by the people.] Well, I can assure you, Judging by the goal of Capitalism...It's anything but anarchist. As Ancap Murray Rothbard states: "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." [Note: from his work Are Libertarians "Anarchists"?] So in conclusion, on a Materialist, Philosophical, and Economic Level Anarcho-capitalism is anything but anarchy, I used my Initial Market Theory to aid that point as well. Hopefully this synopsis has helped anyone who has read it and I look forward to any questions, comments and I will be coming with future works. Thank you. Comrade Tanner Staricka December 4, 2015