[aoeuasdf1]

I admit I have a hard time imagining how an advanced economy could work without a government. Can you clarify your opinions here - in your anarchist utopia,

- Does money exist? If not, how are workers compensated for the full value of their labor?

- Does a central bank exist? If not, how is inflation & deflation controlled? (A common criticism of Marxists is capitalisms boom / bust cycle - how does getting rid of the government solve this?)

- Without a government, how are market failures solved:

Who discourages negative externalities such as pollution, violence, theft, human trafficking, pushing dangerous drugs on minors? It's in no-one's individual self-interest to prevent these things - they require collective action.

Who funds actions with positive externalities such as trash collection, fundamental scientific research, maintaining and protecting national parks, etc

- Many modern industries are extremely capital intensive. I get the idea that a revolution will expropriate existing capital. But going forward, who will create new capital if owning & profiting from it is impossible? Who pays the laborer who produces capital? In my understanding, we either need to incentivize capital production by having the government pay for it and own it (state-owned industries), or by allowing people to buy it and profit off of the ownership. How does anarchism solve this?

I get vastly different, mostly non-answers to these questions from different leftists.

[etplayer]

>Does money exist? If not, how are workers compensated for the full value of their labor?

The workers own the products that they make, and if made in join production then I expect some calculation to be made in terms of socially necessary labour time to be used for calculation. Another option is labour vouchers, which are distinct from money because they are non-exchangeable with others and one cannot accumulate more than 365*24 per year (as they are hour based). This puts an end to the function of capital accumulation which is found in money.

>Does a central bank exist?

Probably not. I expect there to be multiple communities each maintaining their own banks of extra produce from which people can either withdraw freely (higher stage of Communism) or with labour vouchers (lower stage). Many would disagree with me on this point, and I'm by far the most well read in terms of distributive aspects.

>externalities

The absence of the state does not preclude collective action or sets of rules. In the same way that if someone appropriated means of production and forced people to work the machines for wage, I would encourage revolution against them, even in an anarchist society.

>trash collection, research, maintaining

Undesirable jobs would probably be allocated on a rota-like system, or some other democratically decided way. Research and maintenance doubtlessly people find motivating in themselves, so I think that would be covered by self-interested parties. I know a few people who would likely be interested to do one or the other. Education would naturally focus around the fulfilment of jobs which are short in supply.

>Who pays the laborer who produces capital?

There is no payment, this is the whole point of Communism and anarchism. Wage labour is off the table.

What kind of capital production are you talking about? If talking about the development of constant capital (materials, machinery, tools etc.) then the allocation of people to make these resources is probably allocated such that each person needs to do the minimal amount work, either in exchange for labour vouchers or a share of the products made with the materials, machinery and tools that were produced. The same goes for the maintenance of that capital, as a machine degenerates by its labour content leaving it into the goods it produces, and it is repaired by supplying it with new labour. This seems difficult to calculate.

>I get vastly different, mostly non-answers to these questions from different leftists.

That's mostly because "leftism" is a massive variety of tendencies, factions, parties, individuals, theorists, ideologies. They (like mine I assume) are non-answers because most people don't don't devote much time to think of this when they have more motivation to study the critique of capitalism, or just do other things. I have to say that most people are simply unmotivated, and I am one of them. People like the original anarchists, Zizek, Badiou, the Marxian economists etc. have much more time to devote.

[aoeuasdf1]

> The workers own the products that they make

I'm still a bit confused. If the workers own the outputs of their labor, then if I produce a tool, algorithm or machine, do I own it fully? What happens when someone else wants to use my machine to produce other goods - can I lend it or sell it to them in exchange for other goods they own, or in exchange for labor vouchers they own?

My point is that capital produces value when combined with labor - its multiplicative effect is why it is scarce to begin with. If it is to be priced efficiently, it seems to me that we are just re-constructing Capitalism from first principles.

> labour vouchers, which are distinct from money because they are non-exchangeable with others.

In the labor voucher system, why would anyone do hard labor when they could do easy labor for the same number of Hours? Who decides what labor is, and how are people incentivized to do scarce or useful work over non-scarce, non-useful work? The idea of all Hours being equal seems to intentionally flout the principal of comparative advantage.

> The absence of the state does not preclude collective action or sets of rules. In the same way that if someone appropriated means of production and forced people to work the machines for wage, I would encourage revolution against them, even in an anarchist society.

Oh, ok, so a State still exists, then. What attributes of this state make it "anarchism"?

> There is no payment, this is the whole point of Communism and anarchism. Wage labour is off the table.

I think you misunderstood me. By "who pays them" I meant: how are they rewarded for creating capital? Can they sell their capital on a market, or lend it out? If not, how do we reconcile the difference between the flat reward function for different types of work and their vastly different scarcities and social utilities?

Do you acknowledge the fundamental principle that not all labor is equally useful?