They (Spooner/Tucker) called it socialist, but what they really meant was "entrepreneur". Socialism as later established be in the Marxist or Bakunin tradition, always meant to refer to a joint or class ownership of resources or means of production. Unlike Spooner/Tucker who always believed in individual ownership, the right to property, and so forth. Had Spooner or Tucker lived today, or in the 1900's, I doubt they would have used the term "socialist". Since their take on socialism merely meant that EACH person controls their own means of production, and not that there should be a joint control of the means of production.

The disdain for "capitalism" among some market anarchists today is purely emotionalism as derived from semantics and bias. If the collectivist-socialists expressed disdain for what they called "capitalism", should market anarchists do so too? Even if the collectivist-socialists considered everything market anarchists believe in to also be part of that "capitalism"? How would you like it if someone just wrote you off for calling yourself left-wing or "socialist", since both these terms are associated with being antagonistic to free-markets.

Semantics and romanticism has led to those people who associate themselves with those semantics/labels to have a bias. A weird form individualistic romanticism but lacking the true substance for individualism. Instead you become a form of collectivists in a way by lumping together labels. Capitalism is bad, therefore we hate all forms of capitalism. Meanwhile, other Libertarians (call us Right-wing or what have you), we look at it objectively and separate the free-market capitalism from the crony-capitalism, the corporatism and corporatocracy from the entrepreneurship. We dare not to lump all "capitalism" as one.