Thank you for this thorough and insightful post, Kenny. I'm always interested in how others think and what factors influence their conclusions. There's so much to mull over here, on both (all?) sides. It would be cool to have a video series--open discussions on the principles and economic possibilities of anarchism with two hosts to represent a capitalist and an anti-capitalist point of view. The trouble would be to keep it from spiraling into a debate. But I think it could be done, and would prove educational.

Having lived the first portion of my anarchist career, in my late teens and early twenties, as more of a left (but adjectiveless) anarchist, I can relate to a lot of what you're saying here because that's how I would have thought about things back then. I've read works by most of the left-anarchists you refer to, and all of them way, way prior to even hearing about Mises or Rothbard.

I no longer agree that land ownership is illegitimate, or that profit is inherently exploitative, or that a worker's life is involuntary due to the fact that he "must either work or starve". I no longer see capitalism as an inevitable consolidation of wealth, property, and power to an elite few, as I did then.

I've lived with anarchists in collectives and squats, with just myself in rented apartments, and with family on property we purchased. I've lived "outside of the system", trying to avoid money to the best of my ability and relying on sharing and barter for my sustenance, and I've worked for employers, and I've worked for myself. I've seen the pros and cons of all different kinds of living and working situations, and none are perfect. To me, anarchism is about individual choice, and so I would never personally endorse an anarchist society in which mutualists couldn't base their lives and economic behavior on mutual aid or communists on the commune or capitalists on investment and the free exchange of money for goods and services.

But the more I've examined these philosophies, the more I am convinced that capitalism (with its focus on property rights as a moral imperative) is the only one that could accommodate all others. Mutual aid societies, worker collectives, and communes can all exist within an anarcho-capitalist economy, or adjacent to it. Individuals whose preferences led them to reject property or land ownership could practice their values within that system. But individuals whose preferences led them to embrace property or land ownership (especially for profit) could not practice their values within, for instance, a mutualist system. Perhaps the two could peacefully co-exist side-by-side; I don't know. Maybe that is what the adjectives of anarchism all lead to--an anarchism of regions; one where mutualism is practiced, one where capitalism is practiced, one that is a big commune, etc. etc. LeGuin would have had a field day with that.