Could there be a variety of different economic systems in an anarchist society

Question

I've noticed from reading bits and pieces of kropotkin, Proudhon, Bakunin, and any rand that a big difference between anarchists is what they think the ideal economy would be. Could it not just be a mixture? There could be groups of people contributing to communal food sources, producing and trading/gifting/selling goods individually, producing more complex goods in collectively owned business which divide profits according to labor not need all in the same geographical area no? It would be an individuals right to choose whether to do to one or all of these things. If wealth accumulates because of the individualism so what? The only people they could oppress are employees right? If someone doesn't have the freedom to own any means of production individually like in communism isn't that simply dictatorship of the majority?

Answer 1

Downvoted for: "so what? The only people they could oppress are employees right?"

That's kind of a big part of the argument against the existence of employment and wage labor.

Also, Ayn Rand isn't an anarchist, even from the perspective of an-caps and market anarchists.

But, for an honest answer to the question: I do think it's possible (or probable) that there would be a variety of approaches for sharing and creation of resources in some hypothetical anarchist future - just none that reproduce existing forms of property ownership and alienated labor, ideally.

Comments

Thanks for clarifying ur def of property

---

" I was actually asking to see if people agreed with me that different economic systems could co exist in the same area"

"in the same area" is not the same as "in an anarchist society". but for now i will assume you mean both. because we are talking about an anarchist "society", the first question raised for me is: why would there be an economic system (let alone many) in an anarchist society? but then i have a rather anti-mass perspective, and economic systems kind of require a mass mentality. as does production/consumption that extends beyond the immediate needs (and desires, for whatever that distinction is worth) of the individuals involved. if i grow more tomatoes than i (and my clan) can use, what do i do with them? of course, whatever the fuck i want, including composting them for my next garden or throwing them at passers by. but if my neighbor wants/needs them, and i choose to interact with them at that level, i am totally open to either gifting or bartering those tomatoes (depending on the nature of my relationship with said neighbor at the time). if i sometimes gift, and sometimes barter, with other individuals in my bioregion, what kind of economic system would that be? you might say it is 2 different systems. i would say it is no "system" at all, it is individuals choosing how to relate with each other and how to utilize what they want/need/have/create based solely on the context of that situation. an economic "system" does not (to my understanding) allow for that kind of fluidity and flexibility, let alone autonomy. i could be wrong, as i have no formal background in economics.

so perhaps my issue is with the assumed need for economic system(s) in an anarchist world.

then again, it could just be my crack pipe again.

---

Sounds like parecon, thanks for the fresh perspective on "system" I guess what I meant was just that people would choose to partake in whatever "system" they wanted and you would end up with a mosh of different people exchanging different goods in different ways from one day to the next.

---

not sure what sounds like parecon, but i have no affinity whatsoever with that model. i remember looking at that probably 15 years ago, when michael albert and his cohorts on the left were describing it.

maybe i am just getting caught up on the word "system", which i have issues with in the context of describing my desired world.

SYSTEM (meriam-webster):

1. a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole

2. an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole

3. an organized or established procedure

(4. harmonious arrangement or pattern -- ignored as irrelevant)

5. an organized society or social situation regarded as stultifying or oppressive

---

" it is individuals choosing how to relate with each other and how to utilize what they want/need/have/create based solely on the context of that situation." That's what sounded like a pare on to me. One is the definition I was thinking of. I don't really worry to much about words like "right" "property" or "system" I side with Crimethinc on words meaning different things or adapting the words to communicate ideas, mostly for lack of better terms personally. Words constantly change meanings, keeping them the same always sounds like a #2 system.

Answer 2

Of course. To me the whole idea of anarchism is not to tell other people how to live their lives. Enforcing a single economic system sounds very hard to achieve with this premise, don't you think?

"If wealth accumulates because of the individualism so what? The only people they could oppress are employees right?"
No, they also can oppress other people. They hog resources that then are not usable to other people, which is quite a big problem. It is even more of a problem when they can use their power over other people to ensure their control of those resources over a longer time or to acquire more of them.