@rich - kind of, except that it's an anti-civilization rather than anti-capitalist argument (tho the latter is implicit in the former). basically: the switch from nomadic h+g to sedentary cultivation creates individual property and division of labor, thus hierarchy, initiating the long chain of progress leading to now. obviously that is very simplified. the people who espouse that view come mostly from the green anarchist scene (some call themselves primitivists, some don't) tho there considerably more people who sympathize with it to some degree. however, there is a whole other wing of anarchism that espouses anarcho-communism or syndicalism, which is mostly hostile to the anti-civ view (which is quite young, basically post-60s). there is internecine squabbling. also, marxists of all stripes generally don't take it seriously (except perhaps as a general nod to the ecological ravaging of the planet), but they mostly don't take anarchism seriously in the first place (c.f. lenin's "infantile leftism"), anarchists think they're irrelevant + irritating + etc; that shit goes all the way back to marx + bakunin. also, "anti-capitalism" has post-2k become a very generic term that can describe most anything. which is perhaps more of an explanation than you were looking for.