To understand this view, we need to remember time preference is not applicable (or not allowed). From the socialist perspective, any difference in value between input and output is either fraud or theft (to use libertarian terminology). If you invest labor (input) to achieve a value of $100 and receive pay (output) of $95 dollars you are being oppressed.
This is where capitalism becomes “evil”, and I’m glad Per Bylund can explain this because every anarcho-socialist I have spoken to can not explain this or they refuse to do so. Instead, they choose to argue over definitions. This also means that by the mere act of offering a job, a person is conspiring to commit a crime. Bylund also explains:

Success Council
The analysis, however, is fundamentally wrong, and it is so simply because socialists don't understand time preference. It is of value (but not necessarily monetary value) to many a worker frequently to receive a fixed amount of pay for invested labor instead of taking the risks of producing, marketing, and selling a product in the market place (even if the enterprise is not carried out individually but in cooperation with other workers).
It is also true in reverse: the "capitalist" values money now more than money later; thus, profits at a later time need to be greater than labor costs now to "break even." The point here is that if a worker would voluntarily choose between multiple different alternatives there is reason to believe employment is sometimes (or, in perhaps often) an attractive choice.
The socialist not only ignores time preference and voluntary work but the division of labor and market risks. Being able to work for a regular paycheck rather than acting as a sort of “capital-less entrepreneur” is a very attractive thing to most people. Some people prefer, by their own choice to generate $100 worth of products that will go to the market in a month and get $95 now. It is hard to research such history, but it is doubtful that the first “job” was government mandated or done by slavery. In fact, it more than likely originated in the family unit where parents delegated work to children. Or in tribes when a tribe leader may have delegated work to hunters, “Got get food so we can eat.” This was a spontaneous and mutual interaction. It was done without government, and instead private individuals. It was free trade. Anarchy and capitalism.

Add this with the fact that value is subjective, and all of the sudden when socialists say, “Individuals must be paid the value of their actual labor,” the answer is, “According to whom?” $5 holds different value to different people due purely to individual perception. If a person values having a steady job by the amount of the profit that is being “taken” from him, who is to say that is invalid?

To the socialist anarchist is the delivery of a pizza, not worth any sort of payment? He has not produced anything. His pay normally comes from the production of many farmers, between them are truck drivers and cooks at the least. Who is to say that the help of that delivery guy is not worth a bit of pay? What about the managers?

If all men are free individuals, why can the socialist anarchist tell them what they can and can’t do with their own bodies? Only the individual can truly make decisions on what is best for him, and only the individual can subjectively make assessments of value for himself. To the anarcho-capitalist it is perfectly OK for someone to make the individual decision, to refrain from regular work, but they must live with those consequences and if most people prefer to work, the socialist must compete with that. It may sound “unfair” but this is natural spontaneous order.


Making claims about what a person should and shouldn’t do, or what they should “earn”, is not an anarchist way of thinking. It rejects the right to self ownership. Employment and capital are not state functions. They are a part of what makes humans human. To claim otherwise is wrong.

Capitalism is MORALLY wrong.

Capitalism is MORALLY wrong.