Qualifying these problems as if they have something to do with the current state of things somehow not being capitalist implies that the absence of a state, while maintaining the same essential hierarchical structures that exist today, will somehow address our current problems, rather than exacerbate them. That aside, this is capitalism no matter how you slice it -- whether a state is involved in regulatory action or not, private property is the defining feature.

The "ancap nonsense" part is trying to paint a vision of a mythical pure capitalism that is somehow free of the problems the system causes. But there can be no such thing, and it's not at all helpful to argue in favour of this sort of thing when you're arguing with pro-capitalist folk to convince them that they're wrong. At best, you'll make them into confused reformists. At worst, you'll just sound like a fool.