Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.
Capitalism creates hierarchies. Anarchy is a rejection of hierarchies, because it creates rulers.
Capitalism creates hierarchies. Anarchy is a rejection of hierarchies, because it creates rulers.
If you look at what people do for fun, they often create hierarchy and even central authority. They formally or informally elect a leader to their football team, who calls plays and helps with coordinating.
It's just that no one can really force anyone else to stay in that club.
However. “capitalism” is sometimes used as a name for orientation toward something that is not that real world system, which isn't particularly coherent (because it was created after criticism of the real world system almost entirely for the purpose of “No True Scotsman” rebuttal of arguments against actual existing capitalism.) One of the consistent features of this somewhat amorphous construct is opposition to (and, indeed, ascribing every observed problem to the existence of) the State.
Incomplete understanding: Under the ideals of anarcho-captialism, the capitalism part stresses any internal bureaucracies & hierarchies within an org to its absolute limit, and contributes to breaking them via competition from other businesses.
Hierarchies are not an inherent part of capitalism. Hierarchies arise by themselves as a result of the needs to specialize & coordinate labour towards tasks whilst scaling up the org's task-completing capabilites. Regardless of the economic system involved, the adoption & proliferation of hierarchies will persist as the need to scale becomes critical.
Capitalism stresses against this encroaching force by ideally having competitors with lower overhead, and pressuring them into adapting/improving themselves, or face collapse from within.
----
The above section is by no means an endorsement of ancap, as (like most proposed economic systems) it requires a more-ideal-than-realistically-possible environment & participants to exist. However, blanket dismissals of a proposed system are similarly non-advisable, as both lead to the same conclusions: A stunted development in ideological rigor & critical self-analysis.
How could you enforce communism under anarchy?
Communism implies anarchism.
> How could you enforce communism under anarchy?
Communism, as a state, is the hypothetical self-sustaining stateless end-state envisioned by Communism, the ideology. Socialism (an intermediate state in the theory), and State Capitalism (an intermediate state—and one most real regimes claiming Communist ideology get stuck in—in practice) may need enforcement, Communism, almost by definition, does not (whether it os attainable is, of course, a different question.)
How so?
Communism, as a state, requires rules. By that virtue, it’s not anarchy.
Communism as the utopian ideal I suppose could be considered anarchy, but in reality that would never happen, so IMO not really worth discussing.
The two are often conflated, but this fact is fundamental to communist philosophy, economics, and literature.
The USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not "Communist Republics"
As a term, communist state is used by Western historians, political scientists, and media to refer to these countries. However, these states do not describe themselves as communist nor do they claim to have achieved communism — they refer to themselves as socialist states that are in the process of constructing socialism and progressing toward a communist society.[1]
> Communism implies anarchism.
The economic system of communism in no way implies that it would be achieved via anarchic means; It only outlines that the participants in the system share resources towards achieving the common goals of everyone involved. How it should be done has been left as an unfortunate "left as an exercise to the reader".
Anarchic forces may be one way of doing so, but it is in no way implied by communism.