The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchist pt.2

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,441 times Debate No: 56884
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Because of full forfeit from my previous opponent, I have decided to make a second attempt at this debate.

I have made it impossible to accept, so if you're interested then leave a comment saying such.


This debate will be centered around the idea that 'anarcho'-capitalism can't seriously call itself an anarchist movement. For the main purpose that:

1) Anarchism is (and will be in this debate) defined as: opposition to authority and hierarchy.

2) Capitalism is centered around hierarchy.

3) Meaning, anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.

4) Thus, 'anarcho'-capitalism (or capitalism without a state, as they define it) is not anarchist.

The burden of proof for this debate will be shared.

First round is acceptance/opening argument.


I accept. Thank you for challenging me to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Opening Argument:

As stated in the introduction, my premise is that:

1) Anarchism is (and will be in this debate) defined as: opposition to authority and hierarchy.

2) Capitalism is centered around hierarchy.

3) Meaning, anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.

4) Thus, 'anarcho'-capitalism (or capitalism without a state, as they define it) is not anarchist.

To further this argument, I would like to include the reasoning that:

If one is an anarchist, they must be not only opposed to the state. They must also be opposed to all entities that create a state, such as private property (I would also like to differentiate this from personal property, or things that have only a personal use i.e. your car, house, computer, toothbrush, etc.). Since 'anarcho'-capitalists support private property, they aren't anarchist.


I would like to thank Chimera for presenting his arguments.

My opponent's arguments are predicated on a number of axioms that he uses to draw his conclusion. Unfortunately, both of his premises are invalid.

His first premise is that anarchism is anti-hierarchical. However, anarchism is not anti-hierarchical so much as it is anti-government. Emma Goldman, the editor of anarchist magazine Mother Earth, defined anarchism as, "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." Anarchism doesn't mean that everyone under it needs to be equal (in all capacities), nor is organization prohibited, so long as it is voluntary.[1]

Even so, that is unimportant compared to his second premise. Capitalism is not always hierarchical. It is only so at the behest of a government, otherwise known as crony capitalism. Pure capitalism (i.e. market anarchism) is not hierarchical. Murray Rothbard has said, "The difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism is precisely the difference between, on the one hand, peaceful, voluntary exchange, and on the other, violent expropriation." My opponent has not shown that capitalism is always hierarchical, nor has he explained how capitalism is contrary to the philosophy of anarchism. He seems to be mixing up different types of capitalism.[2]

The problems with his two premises make his conclusion invalid. Voluntary free-market capitalism is inherently anarchistic because one, the system does not have a government, and two, capitalism is not inherently anti-anarchistic to begin with (when considering pure capitalism).

Finally, I would like to address my opponent's last claim that private property cannot exist in an anarchist society. Private property is not a thing created by the state, nor is it a system that requires the existence of a state. "If every man has the right to own his own body and if he must use and transform material natural objects in order to survive, then he has the right to own the product that he has made." Private property is not driven by the state.[3]


[3]: Rothbard, Murray N. Man, Economy, and State
Debate Round No. 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:


"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 production

2) Exchange of goods and services for profit in a market economy (aka a 'free' market)

3) Wage labor

Whereas, 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.











I would like to thank Chimera for presenting his arguments.

Argument I

My opponent's arguments sound like a concession. I argued in my first argument that anarchism is simply anti-government and not completely anti-hierarchical.

Anarchy contains the suffix -archy, which is defined as "form of government or rule." The prefix an- means that the suffix is made the opposite of its definition. Therefore, anarchy is defined as being against government and rule. One of the definitions of government is, "A group of people who hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory." In other words, government could be considered forceable hierarchy. This is contrary to anarchism, because it involves force.[1][2]

However, the important thing to take away from that is the use of force. Anarchism does not so much argue against hierarchy so much as it argues against forcable hierarchy (for example, government). "Anarchists are not opposed to leaders and leadership, nor to law and laws " What anarchists oppose is that certain leaders should have a special privilege to use force, a privilege to coerce, to compel others to submit to their leadership, to use force in ways that would be impermissible for other people to use force."[3]

Argument II

This argument is essentially commits the Ad Populum fallacy. Just because a lot of anarchists don't believe that capitalism can be compatible with anarchism doesn't mean that the two can't be. But the quotes do bring up a problem " supposed class hierarchy and unequalization of capital among people. I will refute the arguments themselves in the next two points. I just wanted to call out the fallacy here.

Argument III

I believe what she meant by "man-made law" is government-created law (see the quote I provided above). Everyone has the right to defend themselves, and out of this should come contracts between all people that set down laws protecting that right.

"According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics." Natural law is not man-made law, and private law is compatible with anarchism because it is not established by force, but rather by cooperation between all people. "...there is reason to expect a system in which legal rules are generated by firms competing in a private market to produce efficient rules. Richard Posner has argued that there is considerable empirical evidence to suggest that the actual rules of anglo-american common law are efficient." Law does not require government, and an anarchist society can and should have a form of law.[4][5]

Argument IV

Capitalist wage labor is far from slavery. Muray Rothbard made an extension of his right to surival argument (given in round 2) about labor is not slavery. "The starting point of Rothbard"s argumentation is every man"s sovereign and full right to himself and his labor. This is the position of property creation shared by both socialists and classical liberals, and is also the shared position of anarchists of different colors." In capitalism, you get to choose where you work. Therefore, the capitalist labor system hardly seems like slavery.[6]

Next, there is no set "working class" and "capitalist class". In fact, there is no class dichotomy to begin with, as everyone is capitalist. There is nothing stopping an employee from becoming an employer, and vice versa. Even to our own flawed capitalist system, people go into and out of the wealthiest incomes all the time. There is no exploitation in anarcho-capitalism because it is completely voluntary, and there is no cahance to make the system exploitive because there is no government (that's the major misconception about capitalism " judging capitalism's actions in tandem with the state's, instead of a society where a state doesn't exist). In other words, the class "system" is liquid, and there is no difference between the two instead of an arbitrary definition of wealth.

Argument V

My opponent brings up an interesting quote from Murray Rothbard that I found as I was researching my round 2 argument. I did make me rethink my position for a little bit, but I did some research, and found out that he made that article before he became an anarcho-capitalist himself. Furhter, he even wrote in that same article that:

We are left to conclude that the pure libertarian must advocate a society where an individual may voluntarily support none or any police or judicial agency that he deems to be efficient and worthy of his custom.

It was clear he was against the idea of a state at that time, but he didn't like the stigmatism that the term "anarchy" was used. Regardless, he later became an anarcho-capitalist. And also regardless, this isn't an argument so much against anarcho-capitalism not being anarchism, as the full system was developed later.[7][8]

Argument VI

My opponent's argument rests on another misconception of capitalism " that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The idea that the poor have gotten poorer is nothing short of absolutely false.

Let's look at health. Infant morality, maternal mortality, and death from infectious disease have plummeted to miniscule fractions of what they used to be a couple hundred years ago. Life expectancy, health itself, and the effectiveness of hospitals have skyrocketed. Life expectancy has quadrupled since ancient times, tripled since medieval times, and doubled since the start of the 20th century.

Or how about wealth? 100 years ago, people washed their own clothes, built their own houses, and mostly practiced agriculture. Just 250 years ago, people made just about everything they needed. But now, factories are becoming increasingly mechanized, freeing people up to focus more on high-skill professions with increased leisure time. Better quality products, and most importantly, virtually unlimited access to information has been caused by the capitalist system.

Now sure, the pot of the rich has definitely increased, but who really cares if the pot of the people who are not rich increases as well?

"If we look upon the history of the world, and especially upon the history of England since 1865, we realize that Marx was wrong in every respect. There is no Western, capitalistic country in which the conditions of the masses have not improved in an unprecedented way. All these improvements of the last 80 or 90 years were made in spite of the prognostications of Karl Marx. For the Marxian socialists believed that the conditions of the workers could never be ameliorated. They followed a false theory, the famous "iron law of wages - the law which stated that a worker's wages, under capitalism, would not exceed the amount he needed to sustain his life for service to the enterprise."[9]

Even so, the wealth of the rich is not limitless, and the wealth growth of the rich is not as large as is commonly thought. "In his 2007 book, A Farewell to Alms, economic historian Gregory Clark points out that if you look at real returns to land (rental rates), they have fluctuated but remain virtually unchanged. The same holds true for capital (interest rates). Real wages for unskilled workers, meanwhile, have exploded."[10]

As for my opponent's third component, I will simply reiterate that in anarcho-capitalism, there is no class conflict. The lower-wealth have just as much freedom to gain wealth as the higher-wealth people have the freedom to lose it. Further, a few people owning the means of production is not bad in anarcho-capitalism, because businesses and employers act at the behest of consumers and employees.

As Milton Friedman said:

A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both


Capitalism, at least in the context of anarcho-capitalism, is compatible with anarchism. It place value on freedom and voluntary actions, both of which are the main precepts of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is only incompatible with the flawed definition of anarchism out forth by anarcho-communists, and more broadly, capitalism does fit the definition. How else could anarcho-christianity ( a system based on only the leadership of God) or anarcho-socialism (an economic system that puts the means of production into the hands of the "state") exist without a little tweaking of the definitions? Capitalism can fit with anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism is itself compatible with anarchism.


Debate Round No. 3


2nd Rebuttal:

I. The suffix '-archy' is directly derived from the suffix '-arkhe'. Even then, the wiktionary link you provided states that '-archy' means 'form of government or rule'. 'Rule' implies that there is hierarchy that isn't strictly confined to the state.[1]

You also claim that 'anarchy' would allow for leaders and leadership. However, when if we look into the same wiktionary link you provided, it states that the suffix '-archy' is derived from the ancient greek term arkhos, which means leader. Since the term 'an-' means without, and '-archy' is derived from the term for leader. Then there are no leaders in an anarchy, thus your claim is false.[1]

II. I was by no means commiting an 'Ad Populum'.

The problem is, anarchism has always been an anti-capitalist movement. Saying that you can change that into a capitalist movement is like saying that communism has the capability to be free market. Proudhon, who is really the creator and father of the entire ideology, famously stated that 'Property is theft' (referring to private ownership of the means of production).

It isn't an Ad Populum if I am reffering as to how anarchism has historically been defined, which is as an anti-capitalist movement. Anti-capitalist ideologies can't just start supporting something they have been diametrically opposed to for decades, if not centuries.

III. I don't understand what 'natural' law has to do with this. Many different ideologies and religious institutions have used the concept of 'natural' law to help support their ideology. But such assertions are not real arguments. All ethical code is subjective. Saying that the laws that your ideology purports are 'natural' laws implies that they are like the laws of gravity.

Market forces are not 'natural' forces. They are 'social' forces. Saying they are 'natural' elevates them to a metaphysical level.

Law needs to be backed by violence and force in order to deliver 'punishment' or 'justice' to a 'perptrator'. What gives someone authority to deliver such?

I also don't understand why you are attempting to use Emma Goldman as a means to justify capitalism within anarchism, when Goldman herself was openly anti-capitalist (and an anarcho-communist).

“In modern capitalism economic exploitation rather than political oppression is the real enemy of the people.”[]

IV. You say that everyone is a capitalist, which is an innumerably false statement. The term 'capitalist' implies that they have ownership of a certain means of production. Not everyone owns a factory or farm or land and is able to produce for themselves. Much of these means of production are owned by wealthy corporations, not by the common man.

Also, as for wage-slavery, one becomes a wage-slave since they can't afford to buy certain essential products (such as food) since they are given out wages that can barely afford crumbs.

Now, this isn't very prevalent in society today, but when the United States once pursued more laissez-faire (not saying this is your ideal 'pure' capitalism, but bear with me) policies this was very prevalent. People couldn't just 'find a new employer' because either, a) there weren't any real competitors in the area that could afford to pay higher wages, or b) capitalists would use social institutions and hierarchy, as well as their economic power, to intimidate and threaten employees to stay.

V. Rothbard founded 'anarcho'-capitalism in 1949-1950, that article was written by Rothbard in the mid 1950's under a pseudonym of his. He most likely wanted to write about such, but not undermine the beliefs he had already expounded. In fact, that article was never published.[3][4]

VI. Conditions have definitetly improved for the working class, at least, in the West that is. You can hardly say that the sweatshop worker in Asia or Latin America has the same rights as a worker in the America or Europe.

I also don't understand why you brought Marx or even Marxism into this debate. He has practically nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism.

In fact, if anything, socialist philosophers like Marx empowered workers with knowledge to fight against the laissez-faire practices during the Industrial Revolution and the Gilded Age. Capitalism itself didn't do this, it was entirely caused by the actions of workers who didn't want to be oppressed and treated like machines.

Saying that the classes will not have conflict with one another, and that all will have an equal and fair chance to participate in the market based entirely on skill is ahistorical. Some people will not work at all to gain their wealth, such as inheritors of wealthy families. Others will never be able to get out of an endless cycle of poverty, since whatever corporation or business that works them will see it more profitable to keep them in such a cycle.

People like Milton Friedman were writing during a time when wealth inequality was incredibly less pronounced in the United States. There was a post-war boom, and many people had more equal chances with the rich. However, people like Friedman thought it was just the magical properties of capitalism.

As for your conclusion, I find it amusing that your say that the anarchism that anarcho-communists expound is 'not the true anarchism'. Which is really a 'no true Scotsman'. Even then, the definition that anarcho-communists use is the definition of anarchism that was used by Goldman (who, again, was an anarcho-communist).

Also, anarcho-socialism is not putting the means of production into the hands of the state. There is no hierarchy in any form of anarchism. In anarcho-socialism, the means of production are put into the hands of those who actually work during the labor process, and are democratically controlled. As opposed to the central planning that is inherent in capitalism.

In conclusion, the premise still stands that:

1) Anarchism is (and will be in this debate) defined as: opposition to authority and hierarchy.

2) Capitalism is centered around hierarchy.

3) Meaning, anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.

4) Thus, 'anarcho'-capitalism (or capitalism without a state, as they define it) is not anarchist.

This has been a great debate, I hope everything is fair in the voting process.

Also, sorry for any mispelling I wrote this quite quickly.







I would like to thank Chimera for this debate.

Argument I

This argument is devolving into a semantics battle. It's obvious that there's some uncertainty in how my opponent and I define anarchism. "Rule" doesn't necessarily imply a government, but it does imply that you are forced to follow a principle. Further, "leader" is vague as well. If my opponent's arguments were to be followed to the extreme, then leadership should not be a good quality for people to have, which is blantantly false. The Greek "arkhos" could be literally translated as leader, but it is unlikely that, in the ancient Greek context, that it meant a non-governmental leader, since it is "-archy" that is the suffix of most government philosophies (i.e. oligarchy).[1]

My opponent is essentially arguing that anarcho-communism's definitions of "anarchy" are axiomatic, when this is not true. "This is all good and well, so long as we realize that various groups of anarchists will radically disagree about what is or is not an instance of "rulership." Thus, while left-anarchists will normally classify government, property, hierarchical organizations, and possibly religion, the family, male-female relations, and so on as "rulership," anarcho-capitalists will say that only governments (as well as private criminal actions) constitute rulership. The second definition thus winds up having the same extension as the first one, once one realizes that disagreement about the nature of rulership exists. Thus, on its own terms this argument fails to exclude anarcho-capitalists."[2]

Argument 2

When you dig into what many anarchist thinkers have said, this argument falls apart. It's interesting that my opponent brings up Proudhon's quote, which, actually, when taken in context, it actually fully backfires. Benjamin Tucker wrote, " property he means simply legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at all the possession by the laborer of his products." This supports the definition of anarchism that I've been putting forth. Further, even Kropotkin identified, Tucker, an individualist anarchist, as an anarchist.[2]

Overall, this argument commits two fallacies and one misunderstanding at once " it commits the Ad Populum because majorities do not makes facts, and it assumes that the current meaning of a word is determined by how it was historically defined, which is not true. It also underestimates the individualist-collectivist debates in early anarchist thought.

Argument 3

My opponent misunderstands "natural law". Market forces are not determined by forcable rules, but rather by rational argument. For example, if a consumer wants to buy a product, he will obviously choose the seller who gives him the product for the least amount of money. This is where the natural laws of supply and demand come from. The more of a product there is at equal demand, the less it is worth because another one can just as easily be obtained.The natural laws of the market are not determined by any person, but just arise as a result of a free marketplace.

The private law comes from private individuals. "Imagine a society with no government. Individuals purchase protection of themselves and their property from private firms. Each such firm faces the problem of possible conflicts with other firms." These firms come from the need to defend oneself without having to worry about interpersonal conflicts. So essentially, individuals and private contracts carry out legal principles. There's nothing against the anarchist philosophy here.[3]

Argument 4

But it is not only the producers and the owners of the means of production that are the capitalists. Capitalism revolves around a mutual understanding between the consumer and producer. The producer is not in an inherently superior position because the consumer also benefits from the transaction. And again, the producers are not a set, unchanging group of individuals.

My opponent's wage slavery arguments completely misunderstand the nature of capitalism itself. There are always multiple businesses that an individual can be employed by, and this gives them bargaining power when it comes to wages. Looking at conditions during the industrial revolution today is a perfect example of hindsight. Conditions before then were actually a lot worse than they ever were during the revolution. "The traditional social system was not elastic enough to provide for the needs of a rapidly increasing population." Pure capitalism prevents things like this. Also, saying that the 19th century was the epitome of Laissez-Faire capitalism is a little hasty, as the government had a huge, albeit masked, involvement.[4]

Argument 5

My opponent hasn't really addressed my arguments. Rothbard said in his article that, "The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others." This goes back to the semantics issues I mentioned in the first argument. Rothbard disagrees with the earlier individual anarchists on a few issues. Regardless, he does end up coming under the anarchist label.[5]

Argument 6

Actually, this is another inaccuracy. Conditions before capitalism arrived were much worse (such as under communist governments or colonization). Plus, conditions in the countries where Americans get most of their labor are far from pure capitalist. The governments control a lot of the market, so much so that the economies are only capitalist under the name.

As for my inclusion of Marx, he was just a part of a quote from an article I quoted that I was using to make my argument. But I feel it is relevant again considering my opponent's arguments. Again, Marx's predictions for capitalist society did not come true in the least. Lifestyles have improved enormously under capitalism.

And once again, your judging pure capitalism by criticizing the effects of crony capitalism. Consumers can easily become producers, and vice versa. And once again, owning the means of production is not a better position to be in than a consumer. Sure, a producer is getting money, but the producer has to give up a product worth about that same price.

As for my conclusion, I never said that anarcho-communism was not true capitalism. I was simply summarizing why anarcho-capitalism should be considered anarchism, with the ambiguity of the term. Socialism itself involves the owning of the means of production by the state, which is obviously against anarchism, but a viable form of anarchism was created from it. I pointed this out because the definitions of such systems (i.e. capitalism) can be different with different types of it.


Capitalism can easily fit under the definition of anarchism because anarchism is a vague term (as the semantics argument has shown). Also, the definitions of the economic systems can change according to whatever political system they are under. Anarcho-capitalism places importance on voluntary actions and no forced leadership, which are main precepts of anarchism. Overall, anarcho-capitalism is anarchist.


Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by NPd 2 years ago

I would like to debate you sometime as well :)
Posted by NPd 2 years ago
I think chimera should have won. Although the con gave pretty good arguments, it's chimera who stayed historical rather than subjective in his definitions and even used capitalist resources, such as the misesinstitute and the Rothbard quote, to refute anarcho capitalism.

To bad I'm a noob, otherwise I would have voted.
Posted by Chimera 2 years ago
@RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial .... I think you confused your vote, Subutai is the one advocating for Anarcho-capitalism in this debate, not me.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
I read up on some anarchist societies that have popped up temporarily in certain places, while transitioning from war time. Typically the employees will take control of the means of production, but they'll also have to answer to the union if they want a vacation or a day off etc... It seemed like they were replacing one boss for another. It's kind of why I wanted to take the debate so I could discuss those societies.

I haven't looked into the anarchist societies from 9,000 years ago, but I will now. I'm curious as to how those operated. Chimera I'm a libertarian and I would love to debate something about anarchy with you, but it couldn't be for like another 3 weeks.
Posted by Chimera 2 years ago
@Wylted I don't know of any system of anarchy that allows for the existence of union bosses. Anarcho-syndicalism (which is what I assume you are talking about) is about forming militant, non-hierarchical (which means bossless) trade unions that organize in mass meetings around solidarity, direct action, and self-organization. Not for the existence of a boss.

Also, labor unions do not (necessarily) equal socialism. Socialism is simply the idea of communal ownership of the means of production. Labor unions are also only one of many strategies within anarchism for achieving a social revolution.

The only anarchist society I think you could be mentioning is the CNT-FAI, which was majorly organized by the CNT (which is based on direct democracy). Other than that, anarchist tribal societies existed for 9000 years long before capitalism was even a glimmer in humanity's eye.

Thank you for taking interest in this debate by the way.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
I'll vote on this soon I a few days, but first how in the hell is anarchy pro socialism. Socialism creates extra hierarchy. If you look at anarchist societies when they've sprung up in the past you'll see they formed labor unions in the work places and basically they had to answer to the union boss. So they really just replaced a company boss with a union boss and the hierarchy still existed.

I can't see how freedom could exist without capitalism.
Posted by Chimera 2 years ago
Good luck, I hope we have a great debate.
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
I'll accept this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, being the instigator, set the definitions of the debate, and con's arguments against the definition of anarchism were irrelevant because of that. However, pro's second premise was flawed, and pro never did a good job defending it. As con argued, in pure capitalism, the producers are not advantaged over the consumers; therefore, there is no hierarchy, just a distribution of the economic processes. Pro's other arguments against capitalism were either irrelevant to anarcho-capitalism, or just false. His already fallacious "early anarchists" arguments backfired with con's refutation of it in the last round. Overall, pro did not prove that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist.