Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchist pt.2

1st Rebuttal:I. To show one case as to why my opponent is false, I would like to go into the etymology of the word 'anarchy'.Anarchy comes from the Greek word 'anarkhia'[1] and is written as 'anarkhe'. 'An-' of course meaning 'not, or without' and '-arkhe' meaning 'power, authority'. If we add '-ism' to this term, it would effectively mean 'belief in a lack of authority or power', which can translate to 'belief in the lack of a state'.II. Another case against this, is the fact that anarchism was first birthed as a socialist anti-authoritarian movement, and many of it's important theorists were all against capitalism.Pierre Joseph Proudhon (the 'father' of anarchism) once said: " "Capital"... in the political field is analogous to "government"... The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason."[2] Peter Kropotkin, founder of anarcho-communism (which would eventually become the dominant strain amongst anarchists), wrote: "If they do not yet spread over the whole of the manifestations of life, it is that they find an insurmountable obstacle in the poverty of the worker, in the casts of present society, in the private appropriation of capital, and in the State. Abolish these obstacles and you will see them covering the immense field of civilized man's activity."[3]Mikhail Bakunin, founder of anarcho-collectivism and the main opposition to Marx in the First International, wrote: "The worker's liberty . . . is only a theoretical freedom. lacking any means for its possible realization. ant consequently it is only a fictitious liberty. an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom--"voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory from an economic sense--broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery"[4]As well as possibly one of his most famous quotes: "We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."[5]Most if not all of the major anarchist writers acknowledegd that anarchism was an inherently socialist school of thought. As well as being an anti-authoritarian ideology, which isn't limited to simple political hierarchy, but of all class structures as well.III. I believe you should re-read Goldman's definition, since it shows that your argument for capitalist anarchy is false. "The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."Private ownership of the means of production requires law to defend it. Not only do all forms of government rest on violence, but all forms of class structure (including government) rest on violence, force, and other means of coercion.By allowing for this private ownership of the means of production you designate a working class and a capitalist class. Since these means are 'owned' by the capitalist class, they are authorized by 'man-made law' to use force and violence to defend it. Thus restricting society to a class structure.IV. The defintion of capitalism is:Capitalism: "an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange,characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions."[6] As I mentioned in the previous point, this private ownership of the means of production shows that capitalism is hierarchial due to it's inclusion of wage labor. Again, I would like to re-iterate that capitalism creates a society that divides people into opposing factions, an 'upper' class, and a 'lower' class. Which is effectively the same as creating a 'master' class, and a 'slave' class. Which itself is inherently authoritarian from an anarchist viewpoint.V. Rothbard admitted that 'anarcho'-capitalism is not equivalent to anarchism in his paper 'Are Libertarians Anarchists?'. Libertarian of course referring to 'anarcho'-capitalists."Considering the dominant anarchists, it is obvious that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" must be answered unhesitatingly in the negative. We are at completely opposite poles."[7]"We must therefore conclude that we are notanarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."[7]VI. 'Pure' Capitalism vs 'Crony' Capitalism.As for the 'pure' capitalism argument, I would like to show that 'pure' capitalism would never sustain itself.'Pure' capitalism consists of:1) Private ownership of the means of production2) Exchange of goods and services for profit in a market economy (aka a 'free' market)3) Wage laborWhereas, from a right-libertarian perspective, 'crony' capitalism is when privately owned businesses are characterized not by how they do within a competitive market, but by how well they can rig the economic system and use the state to maintain their monopoly.At this point, right-libertarians are correct in their assumption that we live under 'crony' capitalism. However, they are incorrect in the assumption that this is purely because of the involvement of the state.Certain components of 'pure' capitalism, specifically components 1 and 3, lead to the development of 'crony' capitalism.Component 1 cause this since the value created during the labor process by the workers in a production facility will be appropriated by the private owner. This mode of production continually pumps wealth upwards to be accumulated by bosses.In other words, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.However, Component 1 in conjunction with Component 3 causes the class structure, and subsequent class divide, that was mentioned in previous points. Since there will of course be wealth inequality in a 'pure' capitalist society, it will lead to opposing interests between the poor and the rich. The rich would wish to maintain private ownership over their means of productions, whereas the poor would wish to abolish this notion.Unless the capitalist class act against their own interests, they must find ways to sustain their class status and economic priviliedge in the long term. To do so, they would create a state apparatus to defend their interests and with a monopoly on the use of violence that is percieved to be legitimate. Regardless of whether or not this deviates from 'free' market principles.Basically, businesses living under 'pure' capitalism have greater interest in the consolidation of economic power, than they have in living under a free market.Thus, 'crony' capitalism is more servicable to these businesses, meaning that 'pure' capitalism is incapable of sustaining a 'free' market system.As Bakunin once put it:“Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his fellow-man? Then make sure that no one shall possess power.”[8]This itself shows why anarchism is entirely based on everyone to be equal in power, which goes against capitalist principles due to it's inherent wealth inequality.The permanent abolition of the state apparatus requires the elimination of the means that create a state. Since economic inequality is one of these means, and is caused by Components 1 and 3, capitalism cannot ensure the permanent abolition of the state.Thus, capitalism is not anarchist. Regardless of whether it is 'pure' or 'crony'.I would again like to thank Subutai for his arguments. I hope we have a great debate.Sources:[1]- http://en.wiktionary.org...[2]- https://www.createspace.com...[3]- http://www.sinclair.edu...[4]- http://www.spunk.org...[5]- http://www.marxists.org...[6]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[7]- http://mises.org...[8]- http://www.goodreads.com...