The treacherous journey from Marxism to anarcho-capitalism
Marxism was my truth and the way once upon a time. But anarcho-capitalism became the truth the second I learned one huge detail.
A plethora of Marxists out there will hit you with this line: Real communism hasn’t been tried because real communism is stateless. Capitalism is a destructive force that requires a State to protect land and property owners.
People who think this way have a superficial worldview. I know this because I used to be one of them. The fact is, real communism has been tried, because real communism requires a so-called temporary socialist step. Unfortunately for this crowd, that socialist state, once in power, refuses to cede that power to bring about “real communism.” They have their excuses, but I’ll address them in a future piece.
Therefore, until a “success story” emerges, real communism is a fairy tale. Of course, the rebuke is that they would claim the same fairy tale regarding a stateless society run on an anarcho-capitalist model reminiscent of what Murray Rothbard once advocated and Bob Murphy literally put into theory.
The key difference is that achieving a Rothbardian society doesn’t require a violent revolution or a socialist phase. Instead, as Ron Paul often states, the “revolution” is one of ideas and persuasion — no violence or coercive reforms required. Further, choosing a market-based approach and weaning off State dependence is how you venture closer to anarcho-capitalism. Violence would only be justified if the State initiated it to try and uphold itself.
A realization the man embracing Marxism couldn’t ignore
I can relate to these “real communism hasn’t been tried” Marxists. Between 2007 and 2011, I thought and felt the same exact way: Communism is the only means to a stateless society. We’ve seen what happens when capitalism runs amok, and how the capitalists in society play up to the State.
All while multinational corporations lobby for regulatory measures that their puppets at the state and federal level of government are too happy to implement. That said, a former college classmate of mine cracked the foundation: “That’s not capitalism.”
What the hell does he mean that’s not capitalism? I thought. That’s exactly what capitalism is. Marx set the record straight in Capital. Except, upon further review, I ultimately learned that Marx made the mistake of fusing capitalism with mercantilism.
While the two overlap, they’re also distinct. Richard Fulmer of the Mises Institute highlighted those differences.
Mercantilism:
- Conquest and colonization
- State intervention
- Accumulation of precious metals
Capitalism
- Market-based economy
- Limited State intervention
- Wealth creation through production
Mercantilism, not capitalism, was the true culprit here. And in late 2011, I got a crash course on the true definition of capitalism that rewired my mind.
👉 Catch a true capitalist society in The Arcane Prophecy
Slowly making my way toward anarcho-capitalism
I recently included a take on capitalism from Murray Rothbard’s mentor, Ludwig von Mises, who put it this way:
“In the market economy the consumers are supreme. Consumers determine, by their buying or abstention from buying, what should be produced, by whom and how, of what quality and in what quantity.
“The entrepreneurs, capitalists, and landowners who fail to satisfy in the best possible and cheapest way the most urgent of the not yet satisfied wishes of the consumers are forced to go out of business and forfeit their preferred position. In business offices and in laboratories the keenest minds are busy fructifying the most complex achievements of scientific research for the production of ever better implements and gadgets for people who have no inkling of the scientific theories that make the fabrication of such things possible.
“The bigger an enterprise is, the more it is forced to adjust its production activities to the changing whims and fancies of the masses, its masters. The fundamental principle of capitalism is mass production to supply the masses. It is the patronage of the masses that makes enterprises grow into bigness. The common man is supreme in the market economy. He is the customer “who is always right.”
Now, the question is this: has “real capitalism” ever been tried though Mises’ lens? The answer is yes, it has, and Mises outlines this in the Six Lessons, the first of which is called Capitalism. In it, Mises makes several awesome points while conceding that the system isn’t perfect.
Mises conceded capitalism is no utopia, and that’s fine
For example, Mises noted the population boom in England and increase in life expectancy. He also debunked the viewpoint that people were “forced into factories,” citing how poverty-stricken most of the world was before the Industrial Revolution.
Marxists will cling to the idea that people were “exploited” for their labor, and Mises wasn’t shy about admitting a few facts:
- Working conditions in those early days sucked
- Wages were low
- Hours were long
But here’s the argument Marxists and even mainstream academics gloss over: All three conditions improved throughout the 19th century. It wasn’t until I realized the increase in competition and capital accumulation forced the so-called bourgeois to offer better conditions, pay, and hours, lest their employees would go somewhere else did I understand that capitalism, at least from a Misesian standpoint, thrived.
What robber barons?
One of the biggest “gotcha there” moments occur when someone brings up the robber barons, thanks in part of a book written by Matthew Josephson. But there was only one problem with that: the severity of the robber barons take is, to put it generously, disputed, as Lawrence W. Reed points out.
That was another pipeline in my Marxist to anarcho-capitalist journey, and at this point, all but convinced that the Misesian way was the real deal. Not to mention that, per the Heritage Foundation, the freest markets in the world correlate to the most prosperous.
I first heard of these rankings in 2018, and once again, noticed one major detail: free, market-based economies tend to respect property rights more than anything else. Something that Marxists hate.
Property rights per the 2026 rankings:
- Finland – 99.9
- Denmark – 99.9
- Norway – 99.6
- Luxembourg – 96.6
- Sweden – 96.2
- Netherlands – 96.0
- Austria – 95.7
- Germany – 95.5
- Iceland – 94.9
- Switzerland – 94.4
Respecting property rights means one thing: you’re going to enjoy immense prosperity. Interestingly, only two countries, Germany and Austria, ranked in the top tier in 1995, the furthest back these rankings go online.
The State threatens property rights
Here’s the eye-opener: The State’s presence may protect property rights, but its existence is also a threat to property rights. The reason? Just as only two countries remain in the top tier for 2026 from the original 1995 rankings, it also means eight countries ranked in the top 10 have seen their property rights decrease.
An increase in property rights always means that the government is more content on leaving you alone to your devices. Sure, the Nordic nations, all of which rank in the top 10, boast a so-called “big government model” that isn’t what it seems upon further review, and elite scores in property rights help drive that argument home.
Nevertheless, the numbers speak for themselves. And that’s motivated me to write my young adult academy fantasy: The Arcane Prophecy. In it, Yote Diamondback enters a Rothbardian setting. One that’s foreign to her since she’s astounded at how well the society thrives.
That said, the Northern Region and Aurora Village aren’t bulletproof. Why? Because no society is perfect. And Yote might just be a target from someone on the outside. Someone slipping into that society undetected.
👉 Discover how it all plays out in The Arcane Prophecy
