>Its strikes me that these people don't know what capitalism is
In my experience Anarchists are some of the most well read community of political activists around. May I suggest that you don't know what capitalism is and should spend some time actually reading some theory? Or perhaps engage in conversation with some anarchists? I think you'd find their views and philosophy much deeper and valid than you've conceded in your post.
When you hold up small regions that survived for a short time (about 3 years), created nothing, then were defeated, I’m not sure you’re going to win against a system that created modern North America from nothing and has lasted over 200 years.
Anarchism is an abstract idea that has never worked, which is why all your examples are of anarchists that work with collectivist, squarely against their individualist ideals.
>What do you need to make a modern enterprise? You need tools and you need labor. Some people provide labor, and others provide the tools. Some people who can provide tools, don't necessarily want to provide labor. They are shareholders without being workers.
But the thing is, this only needs to exist this way in a capitalist society. In all your points, you seem to not grasp that the underlying economic system of an anarchist society would in no way resemble the current state of affairs.
In much the same way the economy under a feudalist society does not resemble a capitalist society, and yet fields were tilled and walls built without shareholders.
The fact is that if you abolish capital (by returning collective control over the means of production to the workers) there is no section of society, no "other that provides the tools". The people who provide the tools are other workers, working in other fields, and they supply the workers in the field which uses the tools with the tools. There is no unproductive segment of society such as there is today which lays claim to the wealth without doing any of the labour. This means that there cannot be the accumulation of wealth that we see today, as instead of being horded and spent on the whims of a few, it is immediately pumped back into society.
The state and capitalism are symbiotic. The state only exists to keep capitalist enterprise in check, that is why the state perform functions that we do not believe should be performed for profit (why so many countries have welfare systems, healthcare systems and militaries to maintain the states primacy).
Otherwise everything would be performed by private enterprise (i.e. your anarcho-capitalist ideal) which would very quickly lead to corporate feudalism and private armies.
There is no way for the state to not exist and capitalism to exist at the same time, and seeing as both structures are the root cause of many issues in society, the abolition of both is necessary through decentralization and worker led confederations of labor, rather than the current system of capitalist led governments and businesses.
The state exists in it's current form because we don't trust private enterprise to perform those functions, otherwise we would. So you're agreeing with me, although I could have phrased it better.
And we don't trust private enterprise for good reasons. They're known under many names - tragedy of commons, coordination problems, collective action problems. One possible solution for all those, towards which all societies in history gravitated so far, is the state.
You have such a simplistic understanding of economics for somebody who asks others to read and study.
Where do tools come from? Are they descending from heaven like magic? Tools are the product of someone’s labor. Why would mr A who built tool X give it to mr B for his enterprise unless he gets some return?
Or do you imagine a world in which there is no shortage of tools? In that case just imagine a world where there is no shortage of anything and we can dispense with human labor altogether.
Anarchism is very possible when robots do everything. But not short of that.
Also, you should study why the anarchists ultimately lost and were butchered by the communists after the tsar’s regime was toppled in Russia.
You already answered your own question as to why having this argument with an 'anarchist' is a waste of time. By redefining capitalism to be a specific case of oligarchic kleptocracy (the very non free market system of corporate welfare we currently have in america) they can always avoid the interesting points of the argument.
As an aside, as I read this, you are not advocating for anarcho-capitalism, just pointing out where this scenario ends, but I don't think the people arguing you below understand that.
The real winner is the person who understands both sides and can pick out which people aren't capable of having an intellectually honest conversation and avoiding them.
In my experience Anarchists are some of the most well read community of political activists around. May I suggest that you don't know what capitalism is and should spend some time actually reading some theory? Or perhaps engage in conversation with some anarchists? I think you'd find their views and philosophy much deeper and valid than you've conceded in your post.