Anarchism and capitalism are incompatible.

Opening Argument:I. Capitalism promotes a mode of production that is centrally planned.Capitalism itself promotes private ownership of the means of production. This means, that factories, land, workshops, etc. are all 'owned' by private entities. These private entities are called the capitalist class, and employ the working class to provide labor in return for wages. This creates a system where the capitalist class rules over the working class, who depend on the capitalist class for wages. This is a centrally planned pyramid system.Thus, by the definition provided of anarchism, capitalism creates a class which, in a sense, rules over the working class economically. II. Capitalism leads to the creation of states.Since there is a capitalist class and a working class, both classes have opposing interests. The capitalists have an interest in maintaining their ownership of the means of production, whereas the workers have an interest in taking common ownership of the means of production. Since the capitalists are heavily outnumbered by the working class, they will create a state with laws that will uphold and defend their ownership of the means of production through the use of property laws, which are executed by a police force. Thus creating rulers in the political sense, which anarchism is opposed to.Another way capitalism creates a state, is through the instability of the free market. Since capitalists have an interest in maintaining their control of the means of production, and the free market inhibits this through the rise and fall and the Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' nature of laissez-faire, capitalists will have no interest in maintaining a free market. Since they will make more of a profit, and will have a stronger hold over their means of production within a regulated market. Thus, the capitalist class will create a state that regulates the free market so that large corporations can maintain their monopoly.III. Rothbard's thoughts on anarchism and capitalism.Murray Rothbard, the foremost thinker on 'anarcho'-capitalism, published an article titled 'Are Libertarians "Anarchists"?'[1] under a pseudonym (Aubrey Herbert) in the mid-1950's. In it, he questioned whether 'anarcho'-capitalists (libertarians) could be considered 'anarchists' in both the historical and etymological sense. His conclusion was that '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.' He argued that this was/is due to the 'dominant' anarchists of the time. Being mostly anti-capitalist. He also stated that because of this, 'Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist'. Thus, by the founder of 'anarcho'-capitalism's standards, anarchism and capitalism are incompatible. And that 'anarcho'-capitalists are not anarchists, but 'nonarchists'.First Round Conclusion:Anarchism and capitalism are incompatible. Due to the interests of the capitalist class being centered around maintaining control of their means of production. Those in power of an institution would rather that the institution fail while they remain in power, rather than letting the institution succeed while losing power within their institution.If we apply this to anarcho-capitalism:P1) Anarcho-capitalism entails stateless capitalismP2) Capitalism entails a capitalist classP3) The capitalist class has interests in maintaining in control of the means of production (staying in economic control).P4) The capitalist class interest is best upheld through a state regulating the economy, and enforcing state produced property laws (letting an institution, anarcho-capitalism, fail so they can maintain economic control).P5) Capitalism leads to the creation of a state.C) Capitalism is incompatible with anarchism.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources:1- http://mises.org...