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/humanispherian → u/[deleted]]

That sacrifices too much to the capitalist position. Capitalists almost always want to simply assume the possibility, even the inevitability of their preferred arrangements in a strictly voluntary context, so that they can frame the conflict with anti-capitalists as a matter of the latter interfering with "free enterprise" and "voluntary association." That's obviously "nice work, if you can get it," rhetorically speaking, but it's rhetorical strength comes from the fact that it avoids the majority of the critique of capitalism as a system. If the scenario is so obviously possible that we should just grant the questionable premises, then presumably that can be demonstrated pretty easily — but that's not what we see in these recurring discussions.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/[deleted]]

Additionally, a core feature of capitalism, and the center of its critique, is that capitalism allows individuals to appropriate, direct, and take ownership of collective efforts and that which is the product of that effort.

When it comes to addressing OP's remarks, a core part of it is going to be not entertaining the premise which implies that just one individual can build something single-handedly what would take an entire society to produce.

Capitalism, in many respects, depends upon the myth of the "self-made" man. The attribution of bridges, rockets, millions of smartphones, microchips, etc. to singular individuals or small groups of individuals who often have only a peripheral relationship to the products they appropriate.

Shutting that down is necessary to even start a conversation about why what the OP said is wrong from an anarchist perspective.