Anarchism and capitalism are incompatible.

Thank you for submitting your R1, Chimera. I have seen these contentions before, though citing Rothbard is new. I’ll leave my objections until R3. One word that did cross my mind as in need of definition is the word “ruler”. Being that the term can be defined such that a “ruler” is “a person exercising [control, dominion, or regulation over people or an organization]” [1], it seems that there are certain exceptions that need to be made. What we are opposing here, in more specific terms, is control of others, or rather, people who control others. At the macro-level, this is known as Statism [2]. On the micro-level, this means that, for any choice you make, I can override said choice. Generally, there are only two ways for this to work. Either (A) by convincing me to act otherwise or (B) by initiating force against me. Rulers must take option (B), as this is the only way to have control or dominion over anyone else, who does not freely choose to do as they ask. That said, I shall present my contentions: I. Anarchism’s compatibility with Capitalism is a consequence of the belief that people can make free choices. When thinking of beliefs, or philosophies, it is important, and sometimes necessary, to consider the justification for said belief or philosophy. With the philosophy/belief of anarchism, one of these crucial underlying reasons is that the State is organized violence; that is, that the only way for the State to exist is by initiating force on other people. The logical consequence of this belief, if the person is to create a universal ethical principle, is that the initiation or threat of force is immoral. There are those support anarchism on the basis of some universal principle already established, but this is exactly the same. So, via abductive logic, we can assume that, at least in general, the person in question has some belief related to the initiation or threat of force. I would gladly accept any criticism of this hypothesis, however, Geoffrey Ostergaard, of Peace Pledge Union [3] suggests that it is an anarchist tradition: " The concept of natural society also helps to explain the ambiguous and ambivalent attitude towards violence in the anarchist tradition. The state seen as 'organised violence' is the antithesis of natural society, and it would therefore seem logical that anarchists should reject all violence. Many anarchists, particularly individualists and those adopting a co-operative or communitarian approach, have drawn this conclusion......The ambivalent attitude towards violence of mainstream anarchists was one reason why anarchism and pacifism developed as separate movements in the 19th century, despite their common opposition to war and militarism and their shared historical roots..." * So, we’ve reached a plausible explanation of a phenomenon. While there might be other reasons, this seems to be the only one that would make anarchism justified as a belief. So, with this justification, it does not seem that one can say “Capitalism is incompatible with Anarchism” as there is only the prohibition of force that Anarchism can be said to have. I do not think it can be said that only communism, or collectivism, is compatible with anarchism. There seem to be a variety of arguments that can be made towards quite different conclusions, on the exact same grounds, with the exception of hierarchies, which I will address in my rebuttals, as you have already mentioned this, Chimera. II. Capitalism can be exemplified in multiple ways. “Capitalism” as defined here can be seen in quite a few different ways, within the confines of non-aggression (which was discussed above and in [3]). Capitalism doesn’t have any particular effect, but rather, has effects which can vary quite a bit. For example, it is entirely permissible for a group to own the means of production to which they each have equal access, and each person draws from this collectively owned means of production to make things for themselves. However, from the time that any individual makes contact with any portion of that means of production, they have made a claim to ownership. “Ownership” can be defined such that “X owns y if and only if x can determine the disposition of y”. So, upon making contact with this means of production, the person has made a claim to private ownership, at least in that moment. This is only different from the traditional view of capitalism in that capitalism is typically seen in such a way that the person owns the resources prior to their making contact with it. Capitalism, from an outside viewpoint, entails that some person A owns the resource, and (A) then employs persons B, C, and D to make some product OR (B) persons B, C, and D come to A in order to purchase the materials. Persons B, C, and D are under no obligation to work for A, or purchase products from A. They can refuse, without threat of force. Also, in the circumstances where B, C, and D buy the materials from A, A is, in fact, dependent on their purchases to have any income. There is a certain interdependence: A cannot make income without B, C, and D and B, C, and D cannot make income without A. Even in a work-for-work trade system, this is still in effect. A might have cut down some trees (work) with which B can build a house, provided A gives B some lumber. They are dependent on each other, and A privately owns the lumber. III. Capitalism is the result of not initiating force against others. If I cannot own the lumber that I cut down, it would seem that we have a ruler in our midst. If I cut down some trees (and plant some more, because I’m a nice guy), if I cannot prevent other people from taking it, they are enslaving me. Slavery is not simply the ownership of another person, but also their labor and time [4]. This might be where the term “wage slavery” comes from, but that is another matter. "Lumber" is a capital good. Thus, I am a capitalist; perhaps not a wealthy one, but a capitalist nonetheless. So, unless we are to permit force to be initiated (which means we are not in an anarchist society), we will be living in a capitalist society. Even the adage “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” contains this capitalist notion. Only if you are going to initiate force against me can you take what I have worked for (my lumber, in this example) without my permission; that entails, however, that people can own capital goods and that capitalism is then compatible with anarchism. In choosing not to initiate, or at least making it the basis of legal issues, we choose a world with capitalism. I can own my lumber, and sell it to you, or pay you to cut lumber for me. Either way, someone owns a capital good. “Lumber” is not a finished good. It is a good from which other goods are made. This example can be applied to quite a number of things. A factory, for example, is a capital good. How might one own this capital good? Well, like in my previous example, I could pay someone to make it. I must buy the materials for them to use, and I am paying them for their labor. So, the building that they make, then, is mine. I owned the materials, and my paying for their labor is part of the agreement that they will give me their stake in the factory. Perhaps an agreement could be worked out where they own a portion of it, and so earn income of some kind, and another agreement can be made between myself and the factory workers such that their compensation includes ownership of the factory. However, all of this entails that I own some capital good (as I have determined where they are to go, and I have legitimately attained them). So, the factory workers, in order to have a right to the factory, will need my voluntary consent, or else they are initiating force (or getting someone else to initiate force), and acting as rulers in this micro-level example. Conclusion So, in sum, if we are to avoid using force (which is required of us, if we are to avoid ruler-ships), we will have a capitalist society. Anarchy has a tradition of being against violence (namely the initiative form) [3], and if we are to stick with this tradition, that means that people can own capital goods, sell them to others, and acquire employees as they see fit. Even in a society of work-for-work trading, there is still some form of private ownership of private goods, as X can determine the disposition of y. Chimera could object to this, and use a dictionary definition, if he so pleases, but then that definition would still mean the capital goods are owned. Again, unless force is to be initiated against others, capitalism will be compatible with anarchism. Other philosophies, like collectivism or primitives or communism, can be used as well, but each of these would only be anarchistic if, and only if, they have no force being initiated, as to “rule” something is to control it or have dominion over it. If I am free to make a choice, I am exercising ruler-ship over myself. The only way to make my choice what you prefer it to be is to either (A) initiate force against me or (B) convince me. Option (B) still requires that I am free to choose, which means I am ruling myself. Taking this to the macro-level, this means that “Statism” is not the case. There are no rulers, and as such, we are living in an anarchist society. I look forward to your rebuttals, Chimera. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://www.ppu.org.uk...[4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... *I idealized this quote, as I could not get the formatting correct to place it in block form.