I came to the conclusion that I won’t take a left-libertarians definition of the term “capitalism” serious anymore. In numerous articles I have read by them on the topic including Chartier, Anna Mortgenstern, Charles Johnson, etc, they all have defined it disingenuously. Using the three of these individuals as an example, each of them have given definitions of what “other people” perceive by the word “capitalism” rather than the actual definition which is “private ownership of the means of production”. In other words, this is akin to me going out on the street and asking a non-libertarian what “libertarian” means to them and then using their erroneous definition to define libertarianism. More so, one thing each of these individuals have in common is that in one of their definitions of “capitalism” is that they have it defined as “free markets” or “voluntary exchange”, which is not only ambiguous but is not the same thing as “capitalism”. So, for instance, an anarcho-socialist could also be for “free markets” since it is a market free from state intervention. From there, many left-libertarians would argue that if you are for free markets then you should embrace “anticapitalism”. I address many of these points in my article “Anti-Capitalism, A Love Story” (linked below), but I do suspect that this is deliberate as to smuggle in many other concepts that are unique to their philosophy. https://wti.liberty.me/2014/11/08/anti-capitalism-a-love-story/