Iain McKay wrote a review of Social Ecology and Communalism, a book that contains four essays of Murray Bookchin (with an introduction of Eirik Eiglad).
You can read the review here.
The fact that Bookchin started to oppose anarchism at the end of his life from a left-libertarian perspective makes many anarchists angry.
Iain McKay even writes at the end of his article:
It is a shame that he ended such a fruitful political life by writing such rubbish. Hopefully, his post-anarchist work will be ignored in favor of his real, important and still relevant contributions to libertarian theory—along, of course, with his silly “libertarian municipalism” fetish which became his undoing.
He could only write this after a long text with insinuations that there was a big difference between Bookchin as an anarchist and Bookchin as a communalist. But in the last four decades (and more) of his life, Murray Bookchin had a lot of communalist ideas and was much more a social anarchist than an anarchist. And so, McKay gives people the idea that Bookchin was close to anarchosyndicalism for a long time, just like McKay is. (Maybe McKay even calls himself an anarchosyndicalist, I don't know).
It's a shame that McKay does not describe the history of social anarchism, eco-anarchism or communalism at all here. Which makes me think that he does not know so much about that.
Many people of the libertarian left are afraid of criticizing anarchism, probably because it is criticized so much in the mass media. Bookchin did not have to be afraid of doing that, because even at the end of his life many people thought of him as being an anarchist.