A Similar Problem Between Marxism and Anarcho-Capitalism

(I wrote this on a whim somewhere else. Sorry if it's a bit sloppy at some points.)

Random thoughts time: Marxism and anarcho-capitalism kinda have the same problem of putting the cart before the horse

Marxism structures society into a hierarchy; forces of production (material base; raw materials, tech, labor power, knowledge of tech) -> relations of production (economic structure; property relations, class divisions, power dynamics) -> superstructure (legal system, state apparatuses, political institutions, culture, religions, consciousness). On consciousness, it is determined by being and not vice versa; material necessity forces humans into economic relations which subequently shapes human thought and legal systems and da-da-da. But if we think about it this becomes incoherent. Mental preconceptions precede material production; Marx sez humanity must eat before it can think, metaphor for economic necessity determining society. But vice versa is just as true! For humans to plant crops build factories organize labor etc they must possess mental planning, conceptual frameworks, social/religious practices etc al. We can take this one step further; exchange itself presupposes legal (voluntary or fiat) conceptions themselves. Marx puts commodity exchange at the heart of the economic base, but exchange is parasitic on the prior property norms and rules for possession themselves. To explain *why* people engage in/respect exchange at all (and he must do this, since it's the heart of his model) you kind of have to appeal to normative beliefs or coercive enforcement. But these are superstructural elements. Underlying the base itself is a "substructure" of political authority, coercive power, property conceptions etc that underlies the base, which do not necessarily require economic relations.

Anarcho-capitalism takes a similar assumption for granted; it assumes that property, exchange, and economic relations themselves operate as a self-generating and autonomous "base" that naturally precedes and generates social order. Culture, norms, power, and legal enforcement = a secondary, "superstructural" derivative. Rothbard sez for example essentially that private property rights, self-ownership, and voluntary contracts are pure economic axioms. These are the base. But a contract is a legal-ideological superstructure; only functioning if there is an already a shared, normative framework and a mechanism of coercion/social sanction that forces parties to honor it. Ancaps assume that economic contracts create the order of the market. But as I've said, contracts presuppose a pre-existing substructure of norms, institutions, and social trust that respect such agreements; people have to agree to the terms to function under them, otherwise they wouldn't at all. 

Both Marxists and ancaps treat capital accumulation as a normal autonomous function of the "base", the economic engine. But actually existing capitalism relies on state intervention; absentee land titles, corporate charters enforced by the state, banking monopolies, legal protections for capital accumulation, da-da-da-da. The "base" only generates capital accumulation due to developing within a pre-existing state "superstructure" that allows capitalism to function through political authority. Ancaps and Marxists are kinda two sides of the same coin.