is agorism an extension of capitalism?

Well, this debate is heavily semantical and contingent on your definition of capitalism, my preferred definition for example “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. “ very colloquial and common definition yet heavily disputed. so if we operate under this definition, agorism would be anti capitalist. if we operate under the definition that capitalism is simply private ownership of the means of production then agorism would be seen as capitalist. under anarcho-capitalism, the main driver for any industry would be profit. where as in a left wing market system it would likely be more driven by mutual benefit for individuals in the society. here we can arrive to the conclusion from my definition of capitalism specifically the area “trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.” so if our market is structured for mutual benefit instead of profit this is another way agorism wouldn't fit the script for capitalism. we can boil this down to, agorism and free market capitalism aren't incompatible. and to say all agorists are directly opposed to capitalism would be a false generalization and it would be also incorrect to say all agorists are open to capitalism, rather on an individual basis deduced from their definition we can see some are anti cap some aren’t. so in response to @capitalistjesse there are anti-cap agorists and there are indifferent agorists. to make the assertion that we are all pro capitalism is simply inaccurate and ignorant, you either haven't read konkin or completely misinterpreted his economic points in relation to agorism.