It was essentially barter. Though if many more people choose to be in collectives rather than being on their own, individualists may find themselves in a worse negotiation position. Maybe it would be different today with all available technology now, or maybe you would have to accept the fact that in a true voluntary society not all people would think the way you do, and would choose to cooperate with others rather than being on their own.
Thank you for explaining how anarcho-socialism can be non-coercive.
But I cannot help but imagine that these collectives would disrupt after while. I think they are a bit like governments, they strive to control people.
The people might be a bit more free but from my viewpoint they are still being controlled by the majority in the collective.
Since individualists are allowed in this system you describe, they most certainly will have markets which will create more innovation than inside the collectives.
This will in turn lead to collectives being less attractive than outside alternatives.
They won't lack innovation but certain things can only be innovated where there is a market for it.
If society was like these collectives we wouldn't have things like Ferrari's, Nike sneakers and Las Vegas.
In today's political systems, there are mostly no legal forms that would enable such an enterprise.
In an anarchistic sense, I would predict that all "companies" (or places of production) would have such a structure or similar. Why? The fact that most market-libertarians ignore is that every hierarchical (capitalistic) organization carries within it the seed for the state. As said upthread, historically, if workers felt exploited, they would go on strike, mutiny, and eventually take over the means of production. It was the state, guards, the police that eventually prevented that. That's why market-"libertarian" "heroes" like Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises were not anarchists, because they understood that. They essentially always proposed a
Night-watchman state, which is nothing new, it didn't work then, it probably won't work now, it always lead to inequality and existential struggle of the largest part of the population, and thus was what true anarchists were against.
Even though these are Minarchists you are referring to I will try to defend their views.
They didn't feel the need for police and other institutions was for oppressing workers. They wanted government to protect property rights and stop murderers and thieves etc.
Workers would have no issue with taking over the means of production if they do it in a peaceful way.
But it doesn't matter if it's Adolf Hitler running the factory you cannot kill the owner and take over the factory by force. That is immoral.
In an anarchistic sense, I would predict that all "companies" (or places of production) would have such a structure or similar. Why? The fact that most market-libertarians ignore is that every hierarchical (capitalistic) organization carries within it the seed for the state. As said upthread, historically, if workers felt exploited, they would go on strike, mutiny, and eventually take over the means of production. It was the state, guards, the police that eventually prevented that. That's why market-"libertarian" "heroes" like Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises were not anarchists, because they understood that. They essentially always proposed a
Night-watchman state, which is nothing new, it didn't work then, it probably won't work now, it always lead to inequality and existential struggle of the largest part of the population, and thus was what true anarchists were against.
Very important observation, and you are totally correct. Anarchism is of course totally incompatible with capitalism.
"Capitalism has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."
-Slavoj Zizek, THE SPECTRE IS STILL ROAMING AROUND!
And this free trade (and freedom in general), is what you hold so evil?
You like to speak of "exploitation". I am well aware of how Karl Marx defined it. If an employer pays his worker 1000 dollars to build a product, and then sells it for 1100 dollars, making a profit of 100, he "exploited" the worker for that 100 dollars. Even if the worker is perfectly happy to do the job for 1000, and no other employer would even pay him that much.
Capitalism is about freedom above anything else. Everyone is free to find the best possible job they can, or even better, start their own company.
You say capitalism is incompatible with anarchism yet you say: Capitalism is freedom.
If we remove the state and let people trade freely isn't that Anarchy?
[BTW monopoly is the inevitable outcome of the free market - in the absence of, that is, (and I bare darely say it on this forum) regulation]
