[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I think most of us here share common ground in our disdain towards extrinsic wills dictating, controlling and manipulating our lives, namely that of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed!

[ QUOTE ]
As such, what reassurance could one provide that ACism would not be replacing one existing mode of tyranny, control and injustice (state power) with similar such attacks on our freedoms and liberty due to the implications of a free-market (highlighted by Marx as giving way to parallels with state control) with the added clause that it is to be void of regulation and obligation amongst its beneficiaries e.g. the proprietors, owners and masters who would have free reign over (effectively enslaved?) portion of the population whom are unable to benefit from the 'wonders' of voluntary exchange and owner/worker relationships or more likely are not granted the oppurtunity by the manipulation and cunningness of those with the effective power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, obviously if Marx is correct about the inevitablity of the free market leading to oppression, exploitation, etc., then we would have good reason to reject it (unless every other option was worse; it's worth noting, I think, that state communism was extremely tyrannical, exploitative, oppressive, etc.--perhaps Marx needs his radar adjusted...)

That said, I find Marx's claim both historically and theoretically dubious. Historically, *capitalism* (in the sense of state capitalism) may have yielded the "oligarchic and and monopolistic corporate market", but it certainly wasn't free markets (Gabriel Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism, for instance, details the way in which federal regulation in the so-called "progressive" era led to the monopolization and cartelization of industry and big business that more or less remains today).
Theoretically, I find Marx's claim implausible since a) monopolies can only really exist when there are forcible barriers to entry in a given market (also noting that cartels are both theoretically and historically unstable), and b) governmental regulation tends to hurt consumers and help business by eliminating ways by which companies can compete against each other (and hence differentiate themselves and appeal to varied consumer demand).
I am not sure why you (or perhaps this is Marx?) are assuming that there must, naturally, be a class division between 'owners' and 'non-owners', or 'employers' and 'employees', etc. This sounds to me like you are conflating theoretical free-market 'capitalism' with actually existing state capitalism. State capitalism, to be sure, creates great disparities in wealth and power; but it is certainly unclear that this is the result of free trade and private ownership, and not of State intervening on the behalf of the wealthier class. I think that there are good reasons (again, both theoretical and historical) for thinking that free markets will not inevitably lead to oligarchy and class division, and that it is instead the State that is mainly responsible for this (this isn't to say that there is nothing to fear from private wealth and business in a free market, just that State power and 'Coprorate' power depend on each other and help prop each other up, so by eliminating the State we eliminate most of the potential of abuse by people with lots of $$ or land). In any case, I tend to think that the vast majority of people will be 'owners' (of 'capital', other than their labor) in a free society, and that the traditional emploer/employee elationship will be far different, since workers will much more easily be able to form collectives, and those that choose to work for others will of course have the option of unionization (or of simply working as an independent contractor).