i am the last person who should be attempting to answer this, but perhaps to prod others...
The chief economic features of full communism may be summarized briefly. Society, now composed entirely of workers except for those who are physically or mentally incapacitated, owns in common the natural and man-made instruments of production. Although differences in personal tastes and many individual idiosyncrasies remain, society is classless because the former owning class has been partly destroyed and partly absorbed into the working class. With surplus value no longer received by anyone, the workers possess the entire product they, assisted by nature and man-made implements, turn out. The more labor produces, the more labor has. Consequently, each is motivated to perform his part in the cooperative undertakings of production in accordance with his full abilities. The increased productivity of society assures each member of getting what he needs, and each therefore consumes in accordance with these needs. The citizen of such a society is unable to store up private possessions in the form of capital or capital funds and finds it unnecessary to store up private possessions of consumer goods.
Paradoxically, economic life assumes at once both fullness and simplicity, on the one hand affording the material basis for higher forms of pleasure and culture and, on the other, permitting leisure and freedom from economic worries, thereby encouraging the pursuit of higher pleasures.
each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market. Integral to the scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate, just high enough to cover administration. Mutualism is based on a labor theory of value that holds that when labor or its product is sold, in exchange, it ought to receive goods or services embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility".Mutualists oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through loans, investments, and rent, as they believe these individuals are not laboring. Though Proudhon opposed this type of income, he expressed that he had never intended "...to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose."
Insofar as they ensure the worker's right to the full product of their labor, mutualists support markets (or artificial markets) and property in the product of labor. However, they argue for conditional titles to land, whose ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation (which Proudhon called "possession"); thus advocating personal property but not private property.
Though Proudhon's mutualism is similar to the economic doctrines of the nineteenth century American individualist anarchists, unlike them, the Proudhonists are in favor of association for large industries. Because of this, mutualism has been retrospectively characterized sometimes as being economic individualism, and another times as ideologically situated between individualist and collectivist forms of anarchism. Proudhon himself described the "liberty" he pursued as "the synthesis of communism and property."
Generally speaking, economic collectivism can refer to two distinct concepts: that property (usually in reference to productive property) be owned by all of society in common, or that possessions be owned by collective groups that use the property. The first concept is related to Communism, communalism and some forms of socialism, while the latter concept is related to forms of socialism based on independent cooperative organizations such as Syndicalism, Guild socialism, libertarian socialism and market socialism. Additionally, capitalist systems that largely consist of either cooperative or corporate ownership structures, with ownership being vested in collective entities of legal owners rather than the producers/users of the property, can be characterized as being collectivist to some degree.
Collectivism in the field of economics holds that some things should be owned by all of society and used for the benefit of all rather than being owned by just individuals or private parties. Central to this view is the concept of the commons, as opposed to private property. Early economic systems such as communalism and tribal societies practiced this form of collectivism. Collectivism can also apply to public ownership over the means of production, while others argue that all valued commodities, like environmental or consumer goods, should be regarded as public goods and placed under public ownership. In health care, collective action by trade unions and other professional bodies throughout Europe in the early twentieth century established mutual sickness funds and contracts with doctors and hospitals enabling workers to be assured of access to health care and sometimes sick pay collectively funded by all the members of the trade union or profession.
Collectivism in economics may or may not involve a state as a manager and steward of collective property. For instance, company property in corporations is usually managed by specialized managers, despite being owned in some cases by hundreds of shareholders.