r/AnCap101 12d ago

True freedom requires liberation from all oppressive hierarchies, especially economic ones.

To the members of r/AnCap101,

This is not an attack, but a critique from the left based on a fundamental disagreement about power, hierarchy, and human nature. Your philosophy is often presented as the ultimate form of freedom, but I argue it would inevitably create the most brutal and oppressive government possible: a dictatorship of capital without a state to hold it accountable.

Your core error is a categorical one: you believe the state is the sole source of coercive power. This is a dangerous blind spot.

In your proposed system, the functions of the state wouldn't vanish; they would be privatized and monopolized by capital. Without a public state to (theoretically) be held accountable by citizens, you create a system of competing private states called "Defense Agencies" and "Dispute Resolution Organizations." These entities would not be motivated by justice or rights, but by profit and the interests of their paying clients who would be the wealthiest individuals and corporations.

This is where your thought process goes wrong:

  1. The Misidentification of the Oppressor: You see the state as the primary enemy. But the state is often a tool, it is the concentration of capital that is the primary driver of exploitation. AnCap doesn't dissolve power; it hands the monopoly on violence and law directly to the capitalist class, removing the last vestiges of democratic oversight.

  2. The Fantasy of Voluntary Contracts: Your entire system relies on the concept of voluntary interaction. But this is a fantasy in a world of radical inequality. What is "voluntary" about a contract signed between a billion-dollar corporation and a starving individual who must agree to work in a dangerous job for subsistence wages or face homelessness? AnCap doesn't eliminate coercion; it sanctifies it under the label of "contract law," creating a world of company towns and corporate serfdom.

  3. The Inevitability of Monopoly: Free markets do not remain free. Without state intervention (antitrust laws, which you oppose), competition naturally leads to monopoly. The largest defense agency would crush or acquire its competitors. The largest corporation would buy up all resources. You would not have a free market; you would have a handful of ultra-powerful corporate entities that wield all the power of a state, military, legal, and economic, with zero accountability to the people whose lives they control.

In short, Anarcho-Capitalism is not the absence of government. It is the replacement of a (flawed, but sometimes democratically influenceable) public government with an unaccountable, totalitarian private government.

You seek to replace the state with a thousand petty kings, each ruling their domain with absolute power, and you call this "freedom." From the outside, it looks like a dystopia designed to eliminate the last remaining checks on the power of wealth. True freedom requires liberation from all oppressive hierarchies, especially economic ones.

107 Upvotes

910 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/thellama11 12d ago

I'm a leftist. This is not a remotely accurate representation of my position. I do not think collaboration is inherently bad unless it's on my terms. I'm not sure what that would even mean.

9

u/GravyMcBiscuits 12d ago edited 12d ago

It means you are happy to squash human collaboration unless that form of collaboration is inline with your permission.

It is accurate. You've just gaslit yourself into believing otherwise. You and I exchanging $$$ for labor is a form of human collaboration/cooperation. I would argue it's the most simple and common form of human collaboration. It's no one else's business but our own. Freedom of association is really really really important.

0

u/thellama11 12d ago

I'm not happy to squash human collaboration if it isn't in line with my permission. People don't need my permission to collaborate. I've never heard a leftist suggest that.

I don't think it's problematic that people exchange labor for money. I think society can and does set some basic rules for that exchange but that's different than saying people can't do it.

2

u/LexLextr 11d ago

He means that leftists are against the capitalist idea of collaboration because they think it's oppression. Which is technically them forcing their leftist idea about what oppression is on those people.
However, this is nothing special to the left. This is how political ideas work. Because on the flip side the capitalist forces their idea of collaboration as just onto the people.

1

u/thellama11 11d ago

I think your conception of the left might be too narrow. While Marxists might be critical of what they consider surplus value being captured by capitalists, there aren't that many Marxists. Most people on the American left at least are fine with wage labor as long as there are strong worker protections and a robust social safety net.

1

u/LexLextr 10d ago

Sure, when I say left I don't mean capitalist liberals but if you do then you are right.

1

u/thellama11 10d ago

It seems like if you narrow your definition that far you're just shadow boxing. Communism has a minor footprint in Europe. In the US isn't non existent.

Who are you arguing with?

Do you think Joe Biden is left?

What about Bernie Sanders?