Red marketeers ply their trade by violent means, and resolve their disputes with violence. Anarcho-capitalism upholds the Non-aggression principle, and proposes arbitration/mediation as the preferred dispute resolution method. Violence is only supported in defense against violence.
If an individual from an enclave decided that they wanted to use my property and refused to recognize my rights to it, I would treat it as any theft. That does not mean I would enter the enclave seeking to convert or extort the residents.
There's the problem. You would claim that a given area of land, which you aren't actively using, and a party, meaning no offense to you, starts using it because they do not recognize vacant or unused property, you will try to drive them away or destroy them thereby plying your trade--land ownership, if you could call it a trade--by violence. Perhaps you will hire someone else to do it. What other recourse does a capitalist have? The two ideas aren't compatible.
A cooperative society is in competition with the market society simply by existing. It offers an alternative to the market society. If the market society cannot keep the standard of living above that of the cooperative society, people will seek to join the cooperative society, and the market society will lose people. The same goes for the cooperative society, of course, either it will be growing, dying, or in a perilous equilibrium.
It just seems like an oxymoron to me.