Anarcho-Capitalism does not equal Anarchism

In a Capitalist economic system, the business owners who "own" the production of labor, is the most that reaps the most profits while the labor workers earn a meager wage. Capitalists don't get rich by "working hard." They get rich by exploiting the hard work of labor workers and reaping most of the profits while handing them a small wage. In a Capitalist state that in not Anarcho-Capitalism, you will not be put in prison just because you don't work. You will starve because you will not earn money and you can't buy food. There's no law that says you have to work. That's the same exact thing in an Anarcho-Capitalist utopia. That's just the way Capitalism works.Just because you voluntarily work so that you can survive, doesn't mean the Capitalism system doesn't build a hierarchy.People work and passively accept their unfair wages because otherwise they'd have no means to achieve money any other way. The employer unfairly receives much more than the workers and this system is perpetuated because it is impossible if you are a worker in a Capitalist system, to live any other way. How are you going to live by without any money in a system that only provides you resources if you have money?No economic freedom is not absolute freedom, but the person who has more economic freedom, has more freedom than people who have less. Just like I said before Once you are an Employer/Shareholder/Capitalist, you are in a postion of authority and you now have the right to pay that individual however much you want to pay them in return for their labor (That's only if in this Anarcho-Capitalistic society had no established minimum wage) and you basically FORCE your employees to do whatever you ask them to do, or their position as a puppet in your strings earning meager wages will be threatened! Capitalism basically does force you to work for an employer (or else you'll starve. Again what kind of "choice" is that?) And Capitalism is a rigid economic structure that builds a definitive hierarchy between the employer and the employee. Yes with no hierarchy Anarchy is achieved, which is why Anarchism can not include Anarcho-Capitalism. So Reclus simply stated the obvious when he wrote that "the anti-authoritarian critique to which the state is subjected applies equally to all social institutions." [quoted by Clark and Martin, Op. Cit., p. 140] Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman and so on would all agree with that. While they all stressed that anarchism was against the state they quickly moved on to present a critique of private property and other forms of hierarchical authority. So while anarchism obviously opposes the state, "sophisticated and developed anarchist theory proceeds further. It does not stop with a criticism of political organisation, but goes on to investigate the authoritarian nature of economic inequality and private property, hierarchical economic structures, traditional education, the patriarchal family, class and racial discrimination, and rigid sex- and age-roles, to mention just a few of the more important topics." For the "essence of anarchism is, after all, not the theoretical opposition to the state, but the practical and theoretical struggle against domination." [John Clark, The Anarchist Moment, p. 128 and p. 70] This is also the case with individualist anarchists whose defence of certain forms of property did stop them criticising key aspects of capitalistproperty rights. As Jeremy Jennings notes, the "point to stress is that all anarchists, and not only those wedded to the predominant twentieth-century strain of anarchist communism have been critical of private property to the extent that it was a source of hierarchy and privilege." He goes on to state that anarchists like Tucker and Spooner "agreed with the proposition that property was legitimate only insofar as it embraced no more than the total product of individual labour." ["Anarchism", Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds.), p. 132] This is acknowledged by the likes of Rothbard who had to explicitly point how that his position on such subjects was fundamentally different (i.e., at odds) with individualist anarchism.http://www.infoshop.org...;