• I agree not to initiate force against you so long as you agree to the same for others

• I agree that the stuff you produce or trade for is yours so long as you agree to the same for others

Agreeing to the first point is what I consider to be anarchy, in the sense that you are not imposing rules backed by a threat of force whan you agree not to initiate force. You are free to disagree with this definition but this is what we mean when we say anarchy and why we put anarcho in the term anarchocapitalism.

To the extent that someone agrees to the second point is the extent in which I consider them a capitalist. I think its possible to disagree with this one and still be anarchist but I dont think its sustainable due to conflict that will most likely arise over limited resources but I dont think people ought to have any force brought against them for simply disagreeing with my property norms (although they most likely will be violent in their pursuit of my property especially when you consider that I would destroy my property in most cases rather than let it be stolen: the exception being where I am faced with overwhelming violence and my cowardice and pragmatism kick in to preserve my life)

Anyway, you are free to disagree that this is what a capitalist is. You would be talking about a different thing than what we talk about though, a different language. Most likely you would talk about markets not capitalism and personal property but there is very real conflict here. The best I can hope for here is a truce where we agree not to touch the communal property of communes and they agree not to use their strength in numbers to overwhelm minorities who are opposed to their rule.

Honestly I see communes as corporations where the members are mostly blind to the corporate nature. Its one of the most oppressive hierarchies I can imagine short of reproductive control.

Individualism not communism is the way to go for me but this requires negotiation and property rights in my opinion are a large part of that including the right to issue currency and negotiate contracts for the renting of labor. As someone who works in a factory I find the idea that I am being exploited in this situation that I benefit from greatly as true but absurd in its framing as somehow being in any way "wrong"

The very concept of being against hierarchy in general seems absurd not just because of the hierarchy that exists between the communist collective and individuals but due to the fact that I actively seek out hierarchies whenever I want someone else to do work that I myself cant be bothered doing like specializing in medicine, technology or construction etc, I want the best or at least the best value.

Being against an aspect of reality that is not just omnipresent but incredibly valuable seems unacceptable and contradictory to me. Perhaps I would be better off using some other term but I have found that whatever term people have shifted to in the past, due to the superiority of the position people with less ideological consistency or value will eventually attempt to attach themselves onto the term as if the act of labeling themselves liberal etc will bring about the same reputation. One reason I like the combination of anarchy and capitalism is that it is repulsive to the violent and destructive types on both sides of the political spectrum. Fascists automatically reject the voluntary aspect of individuals being free from compulsion in regards to civil liberties where as collectivists reject the the freedom of individuals to control their own economic freedom.

Protests from either side are different though, in my opinion fascists are more dangerous to ancaps as we share a desire to accumulate capital. Where they differ though is that they are just fine using the state to impose monopolies, steal peoples land, impose trade sanctions and tariffs and control, movement of populations etc

Socialists on the other hand are more likely to impose rules on the structure and flow of capital and organization of labor that leads to massive amounts of poverty and destruction. Despite often times having good intentions about it like thinking it will reduce heirachy to use the power of the state to monopolize production with fingers crossed wishful thinking that this time with the right guy in power willing to take trillions from the corporations (dont look at the corporations the money is given to) ... damn starting to rant

TL;DR the first 2 points.