>>27479076Pretty much any example of free markets that we have assume a pareto distribution of wealth - you can even see this in terms of sexual marketplaces on dating websites. A handful of people at the top will own the majority of everything. And due to that disparity they wield more effective power in a pacified, capitalist society, where law is a matter of contract rather than force of arms. If anarchy could maintain itself without a Leviathan that bullies everyone into submission, we would not live in the world we live today.
>Our current global situation is actually more akin to technocratic economic fascismFascism is by nature corporative (in the sense of society working like a 'body' where different parts are responsible for different tasks but there is common purpose). It emphasises class collaboration rather than class competition. Hierarchy is seen as a natural consequence of the different, innate abilities of people and not something meant to be abolished. It is also a system of popular rule, where the rule is legitimised by the people for the people - even if the form may be dictatorial, the dictator acts in the collective interest. It is most certainly not Marxist as it does not aim to create a classless society. It seeks to mediate between the classes and employ their different abilities for the collective good.
In fact, Liberal ideologies - including Libertarianism and ultimately even Anarcho Capitalism - have more in common with Marxism than Fascism. Just like Marxism, Liberals believer that people are fundamentally equal and capable of accessing universal reason to make informed decisions to maximise their individual happiness. Both Liberal ideologies and Marxism aims to liberate the individual from essential bonds and grant it a maximum of individual freedom. The only thing they disagree about is the means to achieve this.
People need to consider why individuals differ in outcome when participating at the market; Liberalism believes that some put in more 'effort' than others or make 'smarter' decisions (they rarely inquire where this 'effort' that is put in or the 'smarts' to make the decisions come from - ultimately yielding an incomplete model of reality since if people are fundamentally equal, how come some end up filthy rich while others end up poor as shit?). Marxists go a step further, arguing - under the premise of fundamental equality - that it must be due to different material conditions that enable some to make better decisions (due to better education, starting capital, connections, etc.), which leads them to the conclusion that in order to create a just society the material conditions need to be equalised first. In a sense, the Marxists have a better explanation of reality than the Liberals (including Libertarians, etc.), but fundamentally all of them are wrong, since they are starting from empirically false premises.
People are not equal.
