One must oppose capitalism in order to be an Anarchist.

1. One must oppose forcefulness to be an anarchist. 2. Capitalism and freedom are incompatible 3.Capitalism necessitates the use of force. C. One needs to oppose Capitalism to be an anarchist. Premise 1 The "Forcefulness" that anarchist oppose is not limited to the state anarchism seeks to dismantle all forms of domination (misogyny,racism,homophobia etc). Premise 2 Capitalism and freedom are incompatible. Now freedom has many definitions, I will argue from a positive and negative (http://plato.stanford.edu...) liberty perspective as well as Kant's autonomy and inalienable rights to make this point. Kant's notions of autonomy (positive freedom to act in regards to yourself in accordance with your will and without being restricted by any external conditions such as legal, social or economic factors) and inalienable freedom ( one person has no right to act in such a way that it transforms itself into a means only to an end, one doesn't have a right to instrumentalize oneself, that one simply isn't allowed to sell his labor power since that makes him an object of demand for the use of others to accomplish their own ends) . Form a negative liberty perspective "property is theft" , therefore wage-labor relationships can never come about.(https://www.marxists.org...) Property - especially absentee property- is grounded on a violation of everyone's negative liberty to go about the world without restrictions insofar as he acts on no one's body, without stable absentee property capitalist property relations of wage-labor are impossible because everyone has access everywhere so he needs not contract to do so, therefore capitalism is incompatible with freedom. Instead the people can only voluntarily restrict their own freedom of access to pieces of the world which would lead to some property arrangement or other (for example we ought to keep our possessions) as people would enter free associations the members of which would all concede to specific property entitlements that would regulate their relations). The autonomy/inalienable liberty perspective property is acceptable, but wage-labor relations are not as they place one person under the commands of another and no one has the right to sell even part of their liberty. Combining this with Locke's labor theory of property it's clear that wage-labor is wage-slavery insofar as you don't receive all of what you made this implies that you labored at least in part for free, thus you entered into a voluntary slavery relationship and you don't have the right to sell your freedom. Premise 3 Capitalism implies the ownership of the wealth created by a working community, not by the community, collectively, but rather a upper socio-economic class, a statistical minority. This ownership necessarily requires a system of enforcement, because the have nots will inevitably come after the haves therefore the wealthy need 'police' to protect the capital they have accumulated. Therefore, Capitalism is always dependent upon, and propped up by a 'government', even if that government is comprised of corporate executives who command private security forces. It's still a power structure and exploitative, exclusionary hierarchy requiring force , hence, not anarchy. Conclusion I look forward to seeing your rebuttals.