Anarchy is not the rule of wealth. Capitalism however is.
Anarchy is no rulers without consent/Don't initiate force/Don't Archate. Capitalism is Free Trade.
Capitalism isn't rule of wealth. That is plutocracy.
Anarchy is not the control by wealth. Capitalism however is.
No, that is not what capitalism is, that's what PLUTOCRACY is.
Capitalism derives its power of control from the privatization of the planet and its resources.
Privatization is ownership, the power of control is the freedom to exchange goods and services.
All wars derive from the principle of ownership of natural resources and natural beings (Capitalism), and the attempted accumulation of wealth.
Therefore because all wars derive from the idea of ownership, we should ban ownership.
First, it's a false narrative, as evident in almost every single revolution which wasn't about "ownership of natural resources and natural being", but about the legitimacy of governance.
Anarchy on the other hand is rulerless.
Anarchy means from ancient greek, Without Rulers, and not the absence of rulers.
You can have anarchy and still have rulers, the only difference is that you express consent and you don't archate or rule those that don't.
Anarchists do not try to control the lives of others.
Cool story brah, no anarcho communist ever said private property is theft and justified stealing the rich peoples power to give it back to the people.
Capitalists on the other hand do, because Capitalism is a philosophy of accumulation of wealth beyond need, it always looks for expansion opportunity, and seeks to lower the value of the labor of the landless worker ants, to own their lives through economic control, and to own the planet.
Capitalism is not a philosophy, it's an idea that people should trade freely, they should be allowed to chose and not manipulated into choices.
What you're describing are People, people have a philosophy of accumulation of wealth beyond need, who doesn't want to have more than enough!
Everyone wants more opportunities and chances to grow in different ways, what's wrong with accumulating wealth!
Everyone wants work to be easier, cheaper and nobody has the motivation to "own their lives through economic control", because such abstraction is only used to express how much wealth some people have, not actually give substance to the claim, exactly what To own the planet means, to which I say, why not the multiverse, if a person has the drive, and determination and the perseverance to do such a thing more power to them, regardless of how unnecessary more power is to such a powerful person,
This drive to expand leads to the Fascism we now "enjoy". Seeing that the Founders of the US were all landholding Capitalists, the outcome into Fascism was predictable, because government is the mechanism whereby the hyper-capitalists secure their loot. Government is the servant of hyper-capitalists, and Fascism is born from Capitalism.
Fascism is a form of Plutocracy, where a few businesses and conglomerates/corporations own the government, capitalism is still free trade, and hyper-capitalists are another abstraction that is used to repeat the idea that free trade is responsible for everything that is wrong with the world, free trade fucked your wife and shit in your bathroom.
Free trade, is not communism, communism is the belief that someone is entitled to decide on how to distribute consumption, production, and rights that are derived from self ownership, it's the belief that people should give up their right to exchange goods and services for the ends of not having money, and private property and because those things can lead to abuse, it's the philosophy that banning the gun stops people from access to guns. The tool is not the problem, free trade is not the problem, it's the manipulation that governments does on the beckon of companies, and the problem with communism is that it invalidates the non aggression principle when it advocates redistribution of wealth, essentially robbing people of their property because some people own "more" than others, all of it relying on terms that aren't clear, or distinct, and suffer from being about as subjective as they come: enough, too much, more.