There are a little free market libertarians who believe in kevin Carson or Benjamin tucker around me. They say anarcho-communism is Not a legimate form of anarchism. I laugh to myself. They say many sel contradictory ideas,
Reactionary ideology that pretends the US is still in the 18th century yeomanry era. That's usually all I think about it.
In a perfect world I always thought mutualism would lead to communism since markets always end up becoming monopoly but it wouldn't be an issue since the institutions are worker owned but reality wold probably be far different and you'd probably end up getting a few beaucratic large institutions that would essentially be states.
At the risk of sounding ignorant, what exactly is the difference between Mutualist anarchism and anarcho-communism? I always thought Bakunin was a mutualist but I never really knew what that meant in relation to left-anarchism
Bakunin was a collectivist but indeed many of his ideas were built off of Proudhon who is now known as a mutualist. Bakunin was essentially the first classwarfare anarchist and paved the road for later thinkers such as Kroptokin. Rocker..etc
At the risk of sounding ignorant, what exactly is the difference between Mutualist anarchism and anarcho-communism?
Communism is built around common property and production for need without the market as a mediator (means of production belong to the commune, production is collectively determined).
Mutualism proposes a market system that is founded on property rights grounded in occupancy and use (basically socialism with a market).
At least that's my understanding of it. It's also important to note that "left-libertarianism" as an ideology is different from the old school mutualism à Proudhon.
"Left-libertarianism", as it is used by many of the people I've associated with, is a highly eccentric/idiosyncratic semantic clusterfuck clung to as a label by a fringe minority of a fringe minority (I.E. "market anarchism"). A good deal of the basis upon which this tries to distinguish itself from "normal market anarchism" and "right-libertarianism" is nothing but a semantic game based on a desire to be or at least appear "leftist". In the case of quite a few of the people involved, if they are prodded the substance of their positions don't end up deviating all that much from the "norm" of market anarchism and the libertarian right that they so strongly wish to distinguish themselves from. Just take anarcho-capitalism, perhaps tweak a few premises, change your semantics, and apparently you're a "left-libertarian"!
This particularly becomes a semantic clusterfuck when one considers that there is simultaneously a much more historically ingrained tradition (linked with the anarchist tradition in general) that uses the same terminology and would tend to deny that the group in question is particularly "leftist". In effect, a tiny faction of "market anarchists" are trying to appropriate terminology from traditional anarchism without actually commiting themselves to it. They use the term "left-libertarian" in a context that is largely confined to a marginal phenomenon that occured in the late 1960's in America, and somehow expect to be taken seriously by "the left" when they're effectively defining the bulk of its history out of existence in order to claim that they rightfully occupy such an ideological space.
Such an appropriation is sometimes done through the route of playing with language in a way that (perhaps disingenously) obscures substantive distinctions between political ideas, the function of which is to be able to (perhaps naively) say "we really believe just about the same thing". But this is only a veneer of agreement. Such a "left-libertarian" isn't content simply saying that distinct things overlap, which would perhaps be a reasonable thing to say. Instead, they want to pass clearly distinct things off as if they were purely synonamous. Brad Spangler's posts claiming that anarcho-capitalism is a form of libertarian socialism (see here and here) is a prime example of this kind of semantic game that understandably will only get a hostile reaction from traditional anarchists.
It's bad enough that capitalists and the political right have tried to appropriate the words "libertarian" and "anarchist" in general - now they're doing it with "the left"! What a recipe for confusion.