Anarchism covers what youre getting at.
The meaning Anarchocapitalist actually conveys is negative, implying an easy interface with today's ultraconservative, entrenched power structures and a willingness to compromise on the use of privatized violent coersion to control resources you deny to the appropriate commons.
Read Rothbard and Konklin. your understanding of anarchocapitalism as stated here is completely fallacious. I have found no other stated anarchist philosophy with LESS willingness to use coercion, except possibly mutualism.
Will read.
The notion of capital relies on the assertion that "this capital is mine and nobody else's.
Appropriation by a workforce, for example, interferes with that assertion.
Can any sort of noncoersive strategy (private police, chains, higher limit on wages) be used by the capitalist to maintain control?
Using robots makes the question moot. In the meantime, we still have the employee/wage slave archetype toiling away, wasting life, in the real world.
I'd like for you to explain the shortcomings of Anarchism without modifiers compared to an anarchism that utilizes a heirarchy of ownership in a way that justifies the extra ten letters.
I will try, as I have asked the same question. Right now, I can't type well due to an injured hand. But the gist of the reason for the modifiers is that anarchy itself is so often interpreted to mean chaos. Thus you kinda have to let even other anarchists know where you stand. Unfortunately, there are a few major and a million minor variations of anarchic theory. Less than there are of statist theories, but still problematic.
As for agorism, and it's cousin anarchocapitalism, the REAL point of contention between social anarchists and agorists is the definition of property, not the division of labor. Agorists in particular envision the world as about six billion potential independent businesses.
My finger is killing me. I'll get back to you later.