McGruder, I think what you don't understand about the employer-employee relationship is that the employer bears the majority of the risk. The employer stands to lose his investment at any time, the employee merely loses his job. At any point the employee could take that risk upon himself and strike out on his own.
Now, I agree that in our current situation, this proposition is less desirable for most, but I contend that it is due to the state's interference in labor markets, not something inherent in a non-socialist society.
All that said, I don't call myself a capitalist, or an anarchist, but a voluntaryist. I found this to be a good read on the topic of the state's use of force distorting labor markets:
http://c4ss.org/content/4043My take on the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism is simply as follows:
Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.
Without concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible.
Without wage slavery, there’s nothing most people would recognize as “capitalism”.
As the price of capital is diluted, the share of production that goes to the workers increases. What we would eventually see is essentially, a permanent global labor shortage. Companies would compete for workers, rather than the other way around.
There’s nothing the anarcho-capitalists could do to prevent people from agreeing to treat property in a more fluid or communal manner than they’d prefer. Nor is there anything the anarcho-socialists could do to prevent a community from organizing property in a more rigid or individualistic manner than they’d prefer.