Thank you for this ressource, very clear.

My big criticism of anarcho-capitalism is about not addressing the concern of the institutions weight on human capabilities and "radical monopolies". In my opinion, the very possibility of the latter totally undermines the possibility of anarchism. I think that in a way, we already live under some kind of anarcho-capitalism : anarchism for the richest, not for the rest of us (panama papers, etc).

So convivialism integrates that criticism, but I feel like it's more a philosophy than a possible practical implementation to make monopolies "impossible".

Municipalism adds an intermediate institutional layer at a convivial scale that as for now seems to me necessary to prevent the emergence of monopolies appropriating commons thus preventing anarchy.

So the difference is thin, while anarcho-convivialism defines the principles, anarcho-municipalism would add a base layer. However, I understand that this base layer should be very limited in power not to become the local monopoly on power...

Thoughts in process...