I say that it clearly does, to the exact degree that it's framed in the way that you framed it - "Every single noteworthy movement that has called itself anarchist has been anti capitalist." That's not an actual argument for an anti-capitalist position - it's just an appeal to tradition, which is exactly the approach that characterizes reactionaryism.

It's not tradition, I'm not saying that this is the way we should do it because that's the way it's been done, and I think you know that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that propertarians who claim to be anarchists have never done anything useful to drive an anarchist movement.

That's a staggering level of unintentional irony right there, coming as it so clearly does directly on the heels of a blatantly dishonest misrepresentation of what I actually asserted.

You called me a reactionary for pointing out that there's never been a relevant or effective ancap movement, I'm not the one acting in bad faith.

And as if that wasn't enough by itself, you then go on to blandly demonstrate just how overtly authoritarian your thinking is - literally calling for a nominally justified exercise of institutionalized, hierarchical authority to eliminate something that you find objectionable.

Enforcing community standards against bad faith actors isn't authoritarian, and even if it was, I'm not an anarchist, so I wouldn't be acting hypocritically, I just happen to be very well versed in anarchist theory, and therefore understand that you're wrong.

Yes, they in fact are, specifically because, exactly as I noted (and you unsurprisingly completely failed to address), any presumption that any specific economic system will dominate ignores the rather plain fact that some considerable number of people oppose that system, so any presumption that any specific economic system will dominate necessarily presumes the institutionalization of sufficient authority to compel those who would oppose the system to submit to it.

I'm not presupposing that any particular economic system will dominate, I'm presupposing that economic systems which enable capital accumulation result in a ruling class would not exist in an anarchist society. Preventing capital accumulation wouldn't be compelling anyone to follow an economic system any more than an anarchist defending themselves against a self declared monarch would be compulsory to the would-be monarch.

That's a laugh. The person who thinks I should be banned for making an argument that they find objectionable is an "actual anarchist?" You can't even debate without calling for the exercise of institutionalized, hierarchical authority.

Never said I was still an anarchist, and like I said, banning bad faith actors on an internet forum wouldn't be hypocritical even if I was.

I'd certainly agree with that. It's just that I wouldn't stop there - real anti-statism is actually a totally foreign idea to virtually all self-professed "anarchists." Look past their shallow veneer of rhetoric and you nearly always find someone who not only blithely presumes that their preferences are rightfully forcibly imposed on those who wouldn't choose to submit to them, but who explicitly calls for the necessary authority to accomplish that imposition, and even proposes specific mechanisms by which that authority will be institutionalized and exercised. Some might try to excuse it by putting it in private hands, others might try to excuse it by putting it in the hands of people's committees and others might try to excuse it by putting it in the hands of a numerical majority, but it boils down to the same thing in the long run - they just can't actually bear the thought of a society in which there would be no mechanism by which they could see their preferences forcibly imposed on others.

I agree with all of this, anarchist obsession with democracy at the expense of reducing the scope of authority is part of what drove me away from anarchism. Anarchists do frequently speak out of both sides of their mouths (I will never stop rolling my eyes at the distinction between a state and a directly democratic, local, community "non-state government".), I just don't think the idea that capitalism is incompatible with anarchism is a good example of it.