This is just something I've been mulling around for a long time (since before my journey from socialist to libertarian to anarcho-capitalist, so maybe this is just needless.

I know, an-caps shouldn't get bothered with debating on /r/Anarchism, but I came to a few conclusions myself about what I was saying. Maybe that's weird saying something and then hours or days later realizing how powerful the statement is, but it happens to me a lot.

Firstly, I had a mostly karma neutral comment tree where I was talking to an an-com about capitalism, mostly between whether it can happen in anarchy. I said yes because everyone doing everything for themselves is inefficient, and thus they'd all choose to get good at fewer and fewer tasks and specialize, then trading with each other. My debatee said it'd be communism because each person would be working as they could because everything they need would be there. My point was that the "it would be there if I need it" is expectation of return, and is thus a trade, and by extension capitalism.

Unrelated, I was in another tree talking about how backwards it was that /r/Anarchism hates capitalism but keeps the capitalist flairs and socialist flair. This wasn't the first time, but I was told that it was there so I could be singled out easier (which is a joke hopefully), and I joked back that I should just change my flair at the risk of being forcibly removed. I then browsed around for another flair and came to the conclusion that I could call myself an anarcho-transhumanist, because I can still hold onto capitalism and capitalism is in my mind and reality the most efficient distribution of resources and developer of technology. But that wasn't my only option. Anarcho-pacifism works fine too because capitalism must still obey the NAP. Anarcho-environmentalism works good because capitalism is about conservation of property and effeicient use of capital.

It seems to me like capitalism is what comes first, and then stands for everything an anarchist would want to stand for. Anarcho-capitalist then is almost redundant. I mean, sure, each flavor of anarchism would dismantle the state in different ways, but there are the same ends. No coercion, prosperity, voluntaryism, etc.

So I guess what I'm trying to get at is that maybe capitalism isn't so much of a political modifier. It's more of a mode of ethics. A process of how people should behave. Maybe this should change the way you look at /r/Anarchism, I don't know. I know we've tried to show capitalism as being inevitable to them, but maybe they just don't see it that way or are stuck in their head about capitalism. Maybe when you debate with other anarchists you should agree with their non-aggression, non-coercion, whatever else they stand for, and point out that they've just defined capitalism, the code of ethics.