Hey Birthday Pony. You probably remember me from the Left-Libertarian Forum, where I was ultimately branded a troll (I’m not). I haven’t posted there in a while, and I probably should sometime soon.
Anyways, I’d like to jump into this thread. Before anything else, let me explain the cardinal rule of semantics: all definitions are inherently arbitrary. There are no “correct” or “incorrect” definitions, only different ones. With that out of the way, I can attempt to address the semantic conflict between socialist anarchists (as you call them) and anarcho-capitalists.
Basically, the semantic conflict breaks down to this question: are individuals in control of, and therefore responsible for (in a value-free sense), their actions? From what I see, anarcho-capitalists answer this question in the affirmative and socialist anarchists answer it in the negative. To illustrate, let’s take an example of a homeless man who steals food (i.e. takes it without prior permission) in order to survive. An anarcho-capitalist would say that, however understandable the man’s actions were, he nevertheless committed theft. However, a socialist anarchist would apparently say otherwise - he’d probably say something to the effect that the food had actually been previously stolen from the man, since he hadn’t given permission to be deprived of food. According to the socialist anarchist, then, the homeless man didn’t need permission to take the food (back) in the first place.
Unfortunately, and regardless of definitions, the socialist anarchist position is a distortion of reality. On the one hand, it presupposes intentionality of the man with the food to deprive the homeless man of food. (Taken to its logical conclusion, it presupposes that for all people who have food.) On the other hand, in claiming that the homeless man didn’t need permission to take the food, it denies his intentionality to take it against the wishes of the other man. The personal responsibility for the action is thus shifted to someone who didn’t commit the action.
As you’ll probably note, this isn’t so much a critique of the “anarchist” side of socialist anarchism as it is against the “socialist” side. This is because both anarcho-capitalists and socialist anarchists are united in their opposition to the State. On this matter there is no dispute. The real dispute isn’t even between “socialism” and “capitalism”, though, since members of each side typically use definitions for these that are nearly unintelligible to members of the other side. No, the real dispute lay in whether to recognize and accept personal responsibility as it actually exists. In other words, the real dispute is about whether to accept reality.
Now the question is, why would self-proclaimed “socialists” seek to deny reality? They do so to try to change reality, so that it may meet their expectations for it.