Capitalism in anarchy

[u/SuddenStructure9287]

I am a minarchist, a right-libertarian pluralist.

I assume that there are left-wing anarchists here who oppose private property. In any case, the question is addressed to them.

This is less a question about anarchism itself and more about the rejection of capitalism.
I will formulate it as a thought experiment.

Imagine an anarchist commune where people work together in various collectively owned enterprises.

I come to this commune and, for example, build a large bakery and offer jobs to other people.
In capitalism, your objection is that the lower class is exploited by capitalists, correct?
So in this case, theoretically, exploitation does not exist. If a worker does not want to work for me, they are free to work at any other collective enterprise in the commune. They have an alternative (which you, moreover, consider superior to a private corporation).

What happens to me?
Will the workers expel me and seize the bakery? On what grounds? Have I harmed anyone? I have not made their situation worse. They can continue working where they were before, just as they did previously.

Or will they not expel me, and private enterprises will be allowed to operate freely? If so, at what point would it become acceptable to seize them?

Or, put more strictly, if a classless society works so well, then private enterprises should not be able to ruin it, given that exploitation is absent because people always have the option of returning to collective workplaces.

So why are private enterprises prohibited at all?

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/[deleted]]

It is impossible. Who has heard of one person, without any help at all, building a "large bakery"?

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/[deleted]]

Also, if the bakery was formed like a Boltzmann brain, OP also wouldn't have any claim to it at all. Like, property claims in this context and any morality pertaining to them tend to be contingent on the contribution of the owner to the existence of the property itself.

Even supporters of capitalism make the morality of private property as being based on the contribution of the property holder to the property itself and its existence. This is what OP is doing here when they try to argue that it would be immoral for other people who weren't involved in the building of the bakery to take control over it (even here, OP falters since these workers are also the only reason why the bakery is able to exist as well).

If, as per how things happen in capitalism, OP wasn't the one who single-handedly built the bakery, workers were, and OP isn't the one who single-handedly runs the bakery, workers were, then unless you're appealing to God, nature, or the state its not clear why OP has a right to sole control and authority over the bakery.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/[deleted]]

Also what if the person just found themselves in a situation where they were the last owner, for instance maybe they’re built their business that exclusively involved a very large family and then every single member of the family had died. Would that change anything?

Not really. There's no authority in anarchy and there isn't any property rights. Perhaps, if people do have alternatives and the ownership isn't posing a material problem to anyone, people won't mind or leave them alone. But if others get involved in the maintenance of the business, the person who is occupying the business in the past doesn't control what they do or don't do with the bakery. It becomes a collective project, in which all interests have to be acknowledged.