Differences between anarcho-communism, libertarian communism, and mutualism?

So I'm currently an anarcho-syndicalist, and had heard the word libertarian communist used as synonymous to anarcho-communism in the past, but recently I've also heard it being used in a way as to suggest that it is different. So could someone please tell me what the main difference between the two is, if any?

Secondly, I must say I'm a little confused about the word mutualism. It seems sort of like individualist anarchism but I'm still having a hard trouble making the distinction. I've read that Proudhon was a huge supporter of mutualism, and that most anarcho-communists typically are not, but I'm confused because I've read other texts saying that the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin was largely influenced by Proudhon, making it odd that they would have such a stark difference. Kropotkin also has a book called Mutual Aid, which I haven't read but must say also sounds similar to mutualism at least at some points. Could someone please help me make this distinction between mutualism and anarcho-communism?

Aren't they all synonimous?

I know anarcho-mutualism is a different system. It is like the middle ground between anarcho-communism and anarcho-individualism.

Anarchism is a type of libertarian communism.
With Mutualism, workers own their own means of production as individuals or co-operatives. Goods are exchanged on a free market between those collectives or co-operatives and workers receive what they can get on the market for the goods they produce. No ground rent or surplus value since "ownership" is based on usufruct not property titles. Could make use of barter, or labor notes, or money depending on who you talk to. Since co-ops make goods in order to exchange with others, you still have the production of commodities and the separation of use-value and exchange value.

Most communists would argue that the continuation of markets and commodity production would lead straight back to class society via competition and accumulation.

Mutualism, it could be said, is just capitalism without the bourgeoisie.

I would say that "libertarian communism" is a bit of a redundant phrase, as a classless stateless society is bound to be what we would consider by popular standards "libertarian." Libertarian socialism seems to be a term that anarchists use to refer broadly to themselves and to the Marxists that they look positively upon, i.e. Luxemburg and Pannekoek.

Luxemburg is called "libertarian", but her own writings suggest otherwise. She probably wouldn't have said she was a "libertarian communist".

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...7&postcount=19

That post above might be of interest to the OP

There are few Marxists who would claim to be 'libertarian'.

I've often argued that though we reject the concept, for those that think the concept's real, then Left Communists (with the exception of Bordigists) are 'libertarian communists' as we don't believe the party - even if we call it a vanguard - should excercise state power after the revolution. As this seems to be the definition of 'vanguard' (as well as 'authoritarian') among anarchists, Left Communists are not vanguardists in Anarchist understanding, and we're not authoritarians either.

which is some of the reasons as to why i regard you as a geniune revolutionary and a comrade.


Both Bakunin and Kropotkin were influenced by Proudhon. Of course, they weren't mutualists however the basics of federalism etc were outlined by Proudhon.

Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: a Factor of Evolution isn't to do with mutualism. Kropotkin wrote it in response to social darwinism. It catalogues examples of cooperative behaviour amongst animals and human society.



I'm not that sympathetic towards mutualism however i do advise anarchists to read Proudhon, if for nothing other than the fact that he's often misrepresented by people trying to critique anarchism in the most absurd manner.

No, she probably wouldn't. It's not a good idea to assign labels to people if 1. they didn't use them and 2. they're not around to agree or disagree.

I'm always the outlier. Such is my fate.