To preface: I consider myself anarchist. Enjoy my bias and correct or clarify where needed."You're entitled to your own freedom/Not to take others' away." - Earth Crisis, "All Out War"
Anarchism, aka libertarian socialism , is a changing socio-economic theory and practice which oppposes hierarchy. The Greek gives us "an," meaning "not" or "no," plus "arche," "ruler" or "chief." Thus anarchism opposes any government (viewed as rule by one group over another, the groups possibly changing with time or issues). Anarchism also stands - and has historically stood - against capitalism and its attendant wage labor. Other relationships (e.g., marriage, religious fellowship), anarchists want to make equal rather than archist. There's no need for "anarchy-socialism" or other special terms here, just "anarchism."
The word "libertarian" originally meant "anarchist" but was co-opted by the Libertarian Party (US) upon its founding in 1971. "Libertaire" and "libertario" still mean "anarchist" in French and Spanish, respectively.
Randroid (credit to Robert Anton Wilson for the term) definitions aside, capitalism as I see it is not based on the respect for freedom. It is, as the name implies, a system based on accumulation of and belief in the desirability of capital, i.e., land, cash, machinery. Capitalism views labor as just another part of capital, as it does living beings and their non-living habitat. Capitalism holds that one may own anything as property and in any amount.
A note on class:
Working/laborer are those who work under the direction of others, helping to make profit for said others.
Capitalist are those who make a profit off of paid laborers or slaves.
Middle class are people who sell the product, not the time nor direction, of their labor.
Of course, these definitions are incomplete. The jobless (sometimes squeezed by flimsy explanations into working class) are unaccounted. Those who are truly independent are also missing. Don't forget that earnings don't correlate directly to class. Finally, people can and do change classes in every direction.
Objectivist (Randist) capitalism holds that workers actually exploit capitalists by earning money on the products of capitalist's ideas. I also note that Objectivism talks much about "man" and "he" while wimyn are left high and dry. Or do those gender-specific words refer to all people, thus immorally (according to Rand) grouping individuals? Immorality of collectivism is also the reason of Rand's opposition to labor unions (did you read that, pro-capitalists? unions cannot be condoned). You won't hear a peep about industry groups, like the National Pork Producers Council, etc.
Objectivists also talk at length about "force" and "initiation of force." Well, my question is this: if i have done nothing which an ardent Objectivist considers wrong, but then refuse to pay taxes, can the government take the revenue by force? Wouldn't that be "initiation of force" against an innocent whose only crime was wanting to keep money (right in line with the highest of Rand's ethics, selfishness)? Also, I question where the force begins. I could argue that all the US be returned to indigenous peoples because everyone else is here by "force," or that factory owners be subject to labor okupations in the lines since no one person can fairly amass so much wealth, but I suspect this idea finds little support from Objectivists.
Statist "socialism," aka Communism (not communism), is really capitalism. Imagine all the companies in an industry joining in a huge monopoly; now imagine all the industry-wide monopolies joining in one uber-business; now imagine that this uber-business has no governmental limits because it IS the government; you have just imagined statist "socialism." While the workers toil, wasting the marrow of their lives for wage labor, the Party bosses and other elites live comfortably on their backs - capitalism if I have ever seen it. While state "socialism" aims to make everyone working class, anarchism promotes the middle class for all.
