Economic models in anarchism: what actually works?

While I was digging through various anarchist texts for a research paper I'm working on, I noticed a pattern. It seems like most of the philosophers and critics I've come across focus almost entirely on the ideology itself—basically just arguing why the state is a bad idea and why it needs to be dismantled. They might touch on getting rid of our current version of capitalism, but it feels like a secondary thought in most of the literature I've read so far.
On the flip side, it feels like hardly anyone—maybe nobody?—actually offers a concrete roadmap for solving the practical problems. Like, if you're planning to get rid of the whole employer-employee dynamic, how does labor actually get organized? If the goal is to scrap money, how do we handle the exchange of goods and services? How would production, transportation, and supply chains even function? I mean, we keep circling back to the same issue: how am I supposed to pay for bread and milk at the grocery store? It’s pretty obvious that offering some random service to the cashier isn't exactly the most efficient solution... (and let's be honest, that's probably not going to work out well either).
Basically, I was wondering if anyone could share their thoughts on what an economic system under these conditions might look like. Also, if you have any reading recommendations—ideally stuff available online—that would be great.

Since my paper isn't quite finished yet, it would also be really helpful if you could mention what you see as the biggest flaws in a final state of anarchy, or even the flaws in the transition process leading up to it...

Thanks, 🙂

That's a tough one. It’s not that there isn't a way, but I bet life would look radically different than what we're used to right now. Honestly, I've been chewing on this lately, and I just can't wrap my head around how it could actually work without everything falling apart.

You'd just end up with cliques again—people clawing at each other for power, resources, and whatever else they can grab. You'd see these factions forming and bullying everyone else just to get ahead. It’d probably turn into some brutal shakeout where anyone who couldn't keep up gets crushed, and it would take forever before things even stabilized. I'm stumped! 🤷

Definitely an interesting topic to dive into!

I can weigh in on Bakunin if that helps you out.

Here’s how he envisioned the future organization of life:

- Peace, freedom, and happiness for the oppressed
- War against all oppressors and looters
- Returning capital, factories, tools, and raw materials back to the workers
- Land belonging to those who actually work it
- Total equality for everyone
- Equal opportunities for development, upbringing, and education for all, without exception
- The ability for everyone to live off their own labor
- Organizing society through a free federation
- A bottom-up structure via worker associations—industrial, agricultural, scientific, and artistic—starting with communes
- A federation of communes forming regions, regions forming nations, and nations joining the Bakunin International

Bakunin famously said that "the people will find no relief if the club used to beat them is called a 'people's club'." He was dead set against any form of statehood and opposed fighting for mere political freedoms. To him, political liberties were just a trap that fed the people's illusions about the state.

It's pretty clear that Bakunin's anarchism didn't provide a concrete economic model, just rough outlines of his vision.

Cheers

The future, if you ask me, looks like a collection of self-sustaining economies and settlements where trade is reduced to simple bartering, with the value of goods being determined entirely by whatever happens to be agreed upon at the exact moment of exchange.

Peter Parker62 said:While I was digging through various anarchist texts for a research paper I'm working on, I noticed a pattern. It seems like most of the philosophers and critics I've come across focus almost entirely on the ideology itself—basically just arguing why the state is a bad idea and why it needs to be dismantled. They might touch on getting rid of our current version of capitalism, but it feels like a secondary thought in most of the literature I've read so far.
On the flip side, it feels like hardly anyone—maybe nobody?—actually offers a concrete roadmap for solving the practical problems. Like, if you're planning to get rid of the whole employer-employee dynamic, how does labor actually get organized? If the goal is to scrap money, how do we handle the exchange of goods and services? How would production, transportation, and supply chains even function? I mean, we keep circling back to the same issue: how am I supposed to pay for bread and milk at the grocery store? It’s pretty obvious that offering some random service to the cashier isn't exactly the most efficient solution... (and let's be honest, that's probably not going to work out well either).
Basically, I was wondering if anyone could share their thoughts on what an economic system under these conditions might look like. Also, if you have any reading recommendations—ideally stuff available online—that would be great.

Since my paper isn't quite finished yet, it would also be really helpful if you could mention what you see as the biggest flaws in a final state of anarchy, or even the flaws in the transition process leading up to it...

Thanks, 🙂

The very word "anarchy" implies chaos. It's the absence of order. So how can you even ask what kind of order would exist in an anarchy?! There wouldn't be any. Zero. Zilch. Nothing.
Man, it would just be total breakdown everywhere. People would be looting, killing, and clawing for survival like animals in the jungle. Some people argue that this might actually be fine because only the strongest would survive, which they claim would somehow ensure a certain quality of life for humanity from one specific perspective.
But then again, some individuals simply can't suppress their conscience. To feel human, they have to act according to certain rules—to behave humanely (which contradicts the idea that only the strong deserve to survive). If you ask me, the people preaching anarchism are fools; they'd be the first ones to get crushed because I'm assuming they aren't nearly as cunning as Don Vito Corleone, as tough as Schwarzenegger, or as invincible as Chuck Norris.

Brenda Cooper3 said:The very word "anarchy" implies chaos. It's the absence of order. So how can you even ask what kind of order would exist in an anarchy?! There wouldn't be any. Zero. Zilch. Nothing.
Man, it would just be total breakdown everywhere. People would be looting, killing, and clawing for survival like animals in the jungle. Some people argue that this might actually be fine because only the strongest would survive, which they claim would somehow ensure a certain quality of life for humanity from one specific perspective.
But then again, some individuals simply can't suppress their conscience. To feel human, they have to act according to certain rules—to behave humanely (which contradicts the idea that only the strong deserve to survive). If you ask me, the people preaching anarchism are fools; they'd be the first ones to get crushed because I'm assuming they aren't nearly as cunning as Don Vito Corleone, as tough as Schwarzenegger, or as invincible as Chuck Norris.

Oh, really? Is that so? I suppose most people’s immediate mental image of anarchy is just pure, unadulterated mayhem, but if you actually bother to look at the etymology of the term, it simply means "without a ruler," and frankly, why should that preclude a society from being organized? Even the Monty Python crew managed to dream up a perfectly functioning, highly structured anarchist system 😁 ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434

Transkript said:Dennis ' Mother: No one lives there.
Arthur: Then who is your lord?
Dennis ' Mother: We don't have a lord.
Arthur: What?!
Dennis: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as sort-of-executive officer for the week...
Arthur: Yes.
Dennis: ... But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting...
Arthur: Yes, I see.
Dennis:... by a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs...
Arthur: [getting bored] Be quiet.
Dennis:... but by a two thirds majority, in the case of more major —
Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

Dennis Rogers6 said:Oh, really? Is that so? I suppose most people’s immediate mental image of anarchy is just pure, unadulterated mayhem, but if you actually bother to look at the etymology of the term, it simply means "without a ruler," and frankly, why should that preclude a society from being organized? Even the Monty Python crew managed to dream up a perfectly functioning, highly structured anarchist system 😁 ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434

That’s exactly what I just wrote.🙄
I couldn't care less about etymology. Knowing where a word originated doesn't tell you anything about its actual, lived meaning. 😉
If you haven't noticed, Monty Python are nothing if not absolute jokers.

I mean, if we aren't looking toward etymology to find the true essence of a concept, then where on earth are we supposed to look? People act as if an anarchist society is synonymous with pure, unadulterated chaos, but that’s such a reductive way of thinking, isn't it? An anarchist society could be incredibly structured and organized; there is absolutely no inherent link between anarchism and total disorder. And frankly, what does it matter if they were just troublemakers? The community they actually envisioned was both anarchist and perfectly orderly.🤷 Besides, they weren't just a bunch of pranksters.

Alright then, since you're such an expert, why don't you actually answer the question from the first post!!!
argh

When it comes to how we structure the economy, I find myself nodding along with Michael Moore3, regardless of how primitive or unrefined that particular economic model might seem to some. But really, where is the actual issue here?🤷

Brenda Cooper3 said:The very word "anarchy" implies chaos. It's the absence of order. So how can you even ask what kind of order would exist in an anarchy?! There wouldn't be any. Zero. Zilch. Nothing.
Man, it would just be total breakdown everywhere. People would be looting, killing, and clawing for survival like animals in the jungle. Some people argue that this might actually be fine because only the strongest would survive, which they claim would somehow ensure a certain quality of life for humanity from one specific perspective.
But then again, some individuals simply can't suppress their conscience. To feel human, they have to act according to certain rules—to behave humanely (which contradicts the idea that only the strong deserve to survive). If you ask me, the people preaching anarchism are fools; they'd be the first ones to get crushed because I'm assuming they aren't nearly as cunning as Don Vito Corleone, as tough as Schwarzenegger, or as invincible as Chuck Norris.

Saying "anarchism equals social chaos" is honestly one of the dumber things people say about the movement. If you follow that logic, anarchism couldn't possibly function as a final social state, but rather just a "transitional phase." Why? Because people live in communities, and any community requires *some* form of organization (regardless of who makes the rules or how they're enforced)—otherwise, a community effectively ceases to exist.

The term "anarchy" has been interpreted in a staggering number of ways. Just compare the writings of Bakunin, Goldman, or Malatesta, and you'll see the massive spectrum. The one thing all anarchists seem to agree on is the STRUGGLE AGAINST IMPOSED AUTHORITY—to paraphrase: "No one has power over me unless I personally grant it to them." Even their methods vary wildly—from Goldman's somewhat ridiculous militancy to Malatesta's much more moderate approach (which I personally find brilliant). When they talk about imposed authority, they're obviously including all the social injustices an anarchist seeks to rectify.

What Servantes wrote regarding Bakunin's premises is spot on. Personally, I've found incredibly little—practically nothing—regarding what anarchists actually think about the economic organization of society (how they envision it working), which is arguably one of the biggest flaws in their ideology (which, let's be real, is pretty full of holes, even if I admit there are smart bits in there). From what I've gathered reading his texts, Bakunin and his contemporaries were quite close to agrarian socialism.
Those more recent theorists (late 20th century) focus way more on the fight than on what happens *after* the fight, which is... well, beating a dead horse—or more accurately, just pure nonsense (yet another glaring weakness of anarchism as an ideology).

Michael Moore3 said:The future, if you ask me, looks like a collection of self-sustaining economies and settlements where trade is reduced to simple bartering, with the value of goods being determined entirely by whatever happens to be agreed upon at the exact moment of exchange.

It’s the exact same thing happening in modern American capitalism—if everyone is screaming for a specific product, the price skyrockets; meanwhile, if nobody gives a damn about something, it becomes practically worthless, regardless of how rare or "intrinsically valuable" it might actually be. (Just the basic laws of the market, really...)

Peter Parker62 said:While I was digging through various anarchist texts for a research paper I'm working on, I noticed a pattern. It seems like most of the philosophers and critics I've come across focus almost entirely on the ideology itself—basically just arguing why the state is a bad idea and why it needs to be dismantled. They might touch on getting rid of our current version of capitalism, but it feels like a secondary thought in most of the literature I've read so far.
On the flip side, it feels like hardly anyone—maybe nobody?—actually offers a concrete roadmap for solving the practical problems. Like, if you're planning to get rid of the whole employer-employee dynamic, how does labor actually get organized? If the goal is to scrap money, how do we handle the exchange of goods and services? How would production, transportation, and supply chains even function? I mean, we keep circling back to the same issue: how am I supposed to pay for bread and milk at the grocery store? It’s pretty obvious that offering some random service to the cashier isn't exactly the most efficient solution... (and let's be honest, that's probably not going to work out well either).
Basically, I was wondering if anyone could share their thoughts on what an economic system under these conditions might look like. Also, if you have any reading recommendations—ideally stuff available online—that would be great.

Since my paper isn't quite finished yet, it would also be really helpful if you could mention what you see as the biggest flaws in a final state of anarchy, or even the flaws in the transition process leading up to it...

Thanks, 🙂

As I’ve already pointed out, anarchism as an ideology focuses heavily on fighting against coercion—that imposed authority we all despise—but offers us very little, if anything, in terms of what comes next once that fight is won (sure, there are theories, but they are far from being remotely practical, let alone implementable).

Anarchism is an incredibly abstract concept, lacking any sort of concrete, actionable blueprint.
It functions more like a state of consciousness or a social process—a struggle for human freedom and dignity. It’s funny how we tend to split things into two camps: the individualist anarchists and the collectivist ones, though the latter sounds pretty ridiculous and contradictory to anyone who hasn't spent years overthinking it.

Anyway, I won't waste any more of your time—here is a link to a blog that lays out the fundamental concepts and tenets quite clearly (and fairly accurately). If you’re specifically hunting for the flaws in anarchism, pay close attention to point number 4, right at the top.

Beyond that, just use Google to look up names like Kropotkin, Malatesta, Bakunin, or Godwin (you’ll likely need to stick to English-language sites for this one).

If you dig a bit deeper, you’ll even find traces of anarchist thought embedded in ancient philosophy.😉

And just a side note: don't count Chomsky among the anarchists; I think the author of that blog was being a bit overly ambitious with that classification.

Zachary Turner6 said:It’s the exact same thing happening in modern American capitalism—if everyone is screaming for a specific product, the price skyrockets; meanwhile, if nobody gives a damn about something, it becomes practically worthless, regardless of how rare or "intrinsically valuable" it might actually be. (Just the basic laws of the market, really...)

sure, in some sort of theoretical vacuum

but in our capitalist system, we have a few complicating factors:
1. currency
2. price fluctuations driven by shifts in supply and demand

my proposal avoids all of that. mostly because the term "barter" implies an exchange of goods—something for something else—rather than using money as a middleman to buy stuff.

It’s pretty interesting how most Socialists were totally on board with Bakunin’s ideas. At one point leading up to the Paris Commune, Socialism and anarchism were basically two sides of the same coin. The only real sticking point was how fast to scrap the state. Bakunin wanted it gone instantly, while the Socialists argued for a transitional phase—Socialism. Looking back, the Paris Commune proved the Socialists right: you can't tear down the old system and build a new one without some kind of transition period, no matter what you call it.

Mark Torres14 said:It’s pretty interesting how most Socialists were totally on board with Bakunin’s ideas. At one point leading up to the Paris Commune, Socialism and anarchism were basically two sides of the same coin. The only real sticking point was how fast to scrap the state. Bakunin wanted it gone instantly, while the Socialists argued for a transitional phase—Socialism. Looking back, the Paris Commune proved the Socialists right: you can't tear down the old system and build a new one without some kind of transition period, no matter what you call it.

The real issue, if you ask me, lies within human nature itself—a person remains a person whether they're being crushed by a boot or given every ounce of freedom imaginable.
So, the conflict isn't necessarily about different systems, or even capitalism, because eventually, people will inevitably let their darker impulses surface.

In my own vision of self-sustaining communities, everything functions perfectly right up until the moment someone decides they simply won't participate or they just don't care; at that point, the whole thing falls apart, leading to friction, inequality, and fragmentation.

To be honest, there is no perfect system. There is no universal utopia for everyone; instead, each individual has to carve out their own little utopia and just hope that others recognize the value of their effort and respect it, rather than becoming envious and trying to drag them back down into the mire.

.. Anarchism is the only lens through which we can interpret the future—or rather, our path toward it—because the future itself remains impossible to define or glimpse from where we currently stand..

.. When we talk about groups of people, or the organization of trade and commerce... what we are really talking about is your neighbors..
.. If you know that some CEO is pulling in $150,000 a month, but you feel lucky just to have him around, then don't complain.. just shrug and say, "small change, small money"..
.. But.. if you know that someone is manufacturing drugs that will kill thousands just to pad their own pockets—or if they're willing to sacrifice three thousand of their own people for a profit—you can only accept that without protest if you consider yourselves rats. Which isn't necessarily a tragedy in itself—but.. the law will eventually drive you to hunt for other rats to look down upon..
.. And those others will have every right to slaughter you. That is anarchy..
.. It is simply logical action, governed by one vital principle.. this..
.. There may be a great God in the heavens, but on Earth, there are only people like me—even if there is nothing at all in the heavens..

.. The issue isn't about acknowledging authority; it's about acknowledging sovereignty over oneself..

.. I suspect it won't be possible to dwell on that nuance without considering one specific detail: those who haven't faced death or killing will find themselves unable to speak of anarchy..

.. Damn.. here is the interesting part: no killing will actually be necessary..
.. However, it will become essential for a person to feel truly.. alone. Completely solitary. To realize that no executive and no organized group intends to protect them. Only then will a human encounter the final, great power..
.. And the world.. the world that drives a person to that realization.. that is your world. Every step in its evolution is a step toward.. the bright future of anarchy..

1) Connecting the workforce through a massive information network that isn't owned by any single entity—basically built on voluntary contributions and service ads from individual producers. Think virtual companies, decentralized operations without those old-school hierarchies, ad-hoc teams, networking, and digital marketing, things like that;

2) Using open-source software that gets constant updates;

3) Trading goods using virtual currency and its derivatives—you know, stocks, options, and other securities traded on virtual exchanges. I guess the stability would be maintained by constantly tracking supply and demand across various points in a unified global market for goods and services;

4) Continuous, self-regulating consumer satisfaction checks via electronic voting or deliberative decision-making through networks. If someone provides poor service or just fails to deliver, they’d automatically lose their customer base and might just have to throw in the towel;

5) Social assistance based on voluntary donations and advertising—kind of like how charities today run ads for sick or underprivileged children through big corporations, but this would be decentralized and handled through various free services maintained by the network users themselves on a pro-bono basis.

etc.🙄

dustyskipper3 said:1) Connecting the workforce through a massive information network that isn't owned by any single entity—basically built on voluntary contributions and service ads from individual producers. Think virtual companies, decentralized operations without those old-school hierarchies, ad-hoc teams, networking, and digital marketing, things like that;

2) Using open-source software that gets constant updates;

3) Trading goods using virtual currency and its derivatives—you know, stocks, options, and other securities traded on virtual exchanges. I guess the stability would be maintained by constantly tracking supply and demand across various points in a unified global market for goods and services;

4) Continuous, self-regulating consumer satisfaction checks via electronic voting or deliberative decision-making through networks. If someone provides poor service or just fails to deliver, they’d automatically lose their customer base and might just have to throw in the towel;

5) Social assistance based on voluntary donations and advertising—kind of like how charities today run ads for sick or underprivileged children through big corporations, but this would be decentralized and handled through various free services maintained by the network users themselves on a pro-bono basis.

etc.🙄

Pure utopia.
It won't work.😕

Michael Moore3 said:sure, in some sort of theoretical vacuum

but in our capitalist system, we have a few complicating factors:
1. currency
2. price fluctuations driven by shifts in supply and demand

my proposal avoids all of that. mostly because the term "barter" implies an exchange of goods—something for something else—rather than using money as a middleman to buy stuff.

The law of supply and demand is essentially the bedrock upon which all market laws are built—which, let’s be honest, is the single most important concept in capitalist economics. I get where you're coming from, really, but I have to add a bit of nuance here: there is no exchange of goods—whether we're talking barter, traditional trade, the stock market, or anything else—without the relationship between supply and demand. Period. It doesn't matter what system you run.

Quincy:

but capitalism features: 1. money 2. price formation through production adjustments (up or down)

That second point is indeed one of the levers used to manipulate prices—true enough—but if there’s actual competition in the market (meaning, no monopolies), that shouldn't be an issue. Unless, of course, every single manufacturer decides to collude, which is wildly illegal, and frankly, it's the government's job to stop that—you know, via the FTC or some similar antitrust legislation. Look, there are plenty of theoretical solutions out there; anarchism, communism, and the rest are just the more "extreme" flavors on the menu.

Quincy:

My proposal avoids all that. Especially since the word "barter" implies a direct swap of goods (something for something, rather than money for something).

Hmm... your suggestion isn't bad, per se, but even setting aside the fact that it's practically impossible to pull off, there are a few holes in it. Direct "item-for-item" barter is just too impractical today because of how much we need to overcome geographical distance quickly. If the technology exists to make it work (and it does) and there's a genuine NEED for it (and thank God there is, given the global population), then it seems absurd to suggest abandoning a system that clearly works for people just to regress a thousand years by forcing a return to pure bartering. That's the biggest flaw, anyway, though there are others.

Money is becoming a virtual, almost imaginary concept anyway—essentially just a unit of measurement for the value of goods and services. In a few years, the Western world won't even be touching paper cash or physical equivalents; we'll be moving entirely through digital credits (we already do this with credit cards, after all), which would be earned based on merit or the sale of goods and services (in a perfect, theoretical world, at least).

It's human nature to accumulate resources. If people stockpile just enough to live comfortably, there’s no real issue—today, we actually have the capacity to produce massive amounts of food, clothing, and so on. The real problem lies with those who try to grab a million or a billion times more than they could ever need, which inherently creates a massive imbalance on both a local and global scale. We need to put a stop to that kind of behavior, and whether you look at anarchism, socialism, or various other schools of thought, they all seem to agree on that point.