The sticking point is not so much free market - mutualists are considered anarchists by other anarchists - but other, major, aspects of capitalism, mainly private ownership of the means of production and the use of waged labour, where owners hire others to work on or with their property - those are outright incompatible with anarchism, outwith the anarchocapitalists whose 'anarcho' credentials are disputed.

And how exactly do you aim to stop a free market existing?

Because I strongly doubt any political change will get everyone to work for 'common interests', and a fair few product creators, service owners, artists and others will try and sell their work anyway.

How do anarchists plan to avoid this? What about the people who don't want to own the means of production and are perfectly fine with working for others for a wage? What would stop people competing with each other to get more money and resources?

But what, exactly, is the alternative to a free market?

Personally I'm a fan of a workers run syndicalist economy. There are other options, like a workers run market economy, or an outright collectivist gift economy.

The question is, how would you enforce that, if some part of the populace just decided to recognize property rights, and structured their part of the economy accordingly?

> or an outright collectivist gift economy.

Of which we already have a great example in FOSS.

Which is utterly dependent on the "real" economy for umm, food and every other essential.

Are there any examples of that working at large scale?

> Any anarchist would say that a free market is inherently oppressive.

When did anarcho-capitalists stop being anarchists?

They never were TBH, capitalism is inherently hierarchical and a system of entirely private enterprise would resemble corporate feudalism, not an anarchist society.