When you hire Gen Z this is what you get

There is a growing debate among political theorists about the relationship between Marxism and anarcho-capitalism. While the two ideologies seem to be diametrically opposed, some argue that they share a common endpoint. In this post, we will explore the argument that Marxism ultimately leads to anarcho-capitalism.

Marxism is a political and economic theory that seeks to abolish private ownership of the means of production and establish a classless society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the workers. According to Marxist theory, capitalism is inherently exploitative and leads to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few, while the working class is left to struggle and suffer.

Marxist theory proposes that the state should be used as a tool to eliminate the exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class. The state, according to Marxism, is the means by which the workers can seize control of the means of production and establish a socialist economy. The ultimate goal of Marxism is the establishment of a classless society in which the state has withered away, and the means of production are owned and controlled by the workers.

However, some theorists argue that Marxism, in practice, has always led to the concentration of power in the hands of the state. They point to the examples of the Soviet Union, China, and other socialist countries, where the state became an instrument of oppression rather than liberation.

Anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, is a political and economic theory that advocates for the elimination of the state and the establishment of a society based on voluntary exchanges and free markets. According to anarcho-capitalist theory, the state is inherently coercive and leads to the concentration of power in the hands of the ruling class.

Anarcho-capitalism proposes that all interactions between individuals should be voluntary and free from coercion. In an anarcho-capitalist society, individuals would be free to own property, engage in trade, and form voluntary associations without interference from the state.

So, how does Marxism ultimately lead to anarcho-capitalism? The argument is that when the state becomes the means by which the workers seize control of the means of production, it inevitably becomes a tool of coercion and oppression. The state must use force to enforce its control over the means of production, and this leads to the concentration of power in the hands of the state.

As the state becomes more powerful, it begins to take on a life of its own, independent of the interests of the workers it is supposed to represent. The state becomes an institution in itself, with its own interests and priorities. This leads to the emergence of a ruling class that is separate from and often in opposition to the working class.

In this sense, Marxism ultimately leads to the concentration of power in the hands of the state, which is antithetical to the goal of a classless society. This is where the argument that Marxism leads to anarcho-capitalism comes in. When the state becomes the source of oppression, the only way to eliminate that oppression is to eliminate the state itself.

Anarcho-capitalism proposes that the state is inherently coercive and leads to the concentration of power in the hands of the ruling class. By eliminating the state and allowing individuals to interact freely in voluntary exchanges, anarcho-capitalism seeks to eliminate coercion and create a society based on the principles of individual freedom and free markets.

In conclusion, while Marxism and anarcho-capitalism may seem like opposing ideologies, there is an argument to be made that Marxism ultimately leads to anarcho-capitalism. The concentration of power in the hands of the state, which is an inherent aspect of Marxism, inevitably leads to the emergence of a ruling class and the oppression of the working class. Anarcho-capitalism proposes that the only way to eliminate this oppression is to eliminate the state itself and establish a society based on voluntary exchanges and free markets. Whether this argument holds true remains a topic of debate among political theorists, but it is an interesting perspective that sheds light on the potential unintended consequences of political ideologies.