The page on anarcho-capitalism gives better credit to this problem:
Anarcho-capitalism developed from Austrian School-neoliberalism and individualist anarchism.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Almost all anarchist movements do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchist because it lacks the historically central anti-capitalist emphasis of anarchism. They also argue that anarchism is incompatible with capitalist structures.[40][41][42][43][44][45] According to several scholars, Anarcho-capitalism lies outside the tradition of the vast majority of anarchist schools of thought and is more closely affiliated with capitalism, right-libertarianism and neoliberalism.[40][46][47][48][49][50] Traditionally, anarchists oppose and reject capitalism, and consider "anarcho-capitalism" to be a contradiction in terms,[51][52][53] although anarcho-capitalists and some right-libertarians consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism.[54][55][56][57]
Apparently, it's hot potato in academics; and it's just stupid, for it's an argument about definition. Call it Susan if you like it, just define it. And clearly, "anacrchism" as general term is not exactly friendly term then. People've got to be more specific to be understood correctly.
Yeah, I remember, when I used to live in Texas, there was this "libertarian party" that had nothing to do with liber- but just ultra right religious jerks sucking for the Trump party.
And there was some "tea party" guys that were into libertarianism at the time, but really were Trump supporters essentially, just more sensible otherwise. The situation was unmeasurably stupid, considering how the whole idea of the US was about libertarianism and no movement really promoted its ideas, just "let's regulate something else and make each others lives more miserable" things.
But then I'm pretty sure this theft of libertarianism is effective only in the US.