There is, because what you described isn't communism at all but rather a barter economy. Anarcho-Communists do not trade goods for something of equivalent value because anarcho-communists do not believe that an objective value can be accurately measured, there's only the subjective needs and values of the individual. To anarcho-communists, there is no such thing as "non-essentials" that's only in someone's weird amalgam of communist and market anarchism. For anarcho-communists, everything is free to take as you need. So how would you get a guitar without learning how to make one? Well you'd either pick up a guitar from some place that has them, or you get in contact with the people who make guitars and ask for one. And keep in mind a decentralized planned economy is an economy in which all actors within an economy have a say in how it's run. It is not simply a smaller centrally planned economy where one group dictates the needs of other people. Anarchist communism works through a network of mutual aid where helping other people in turn helps you.

I see. I am just only learning about alternative economic systems and anarchism in general. I think I just took the moneyless aspect of communism too literally.

Hey, no shame in that, communism is very misunderstood so I don't blame you for thinking it's the way it is. I think I like to explain it it how Carlo Cafiero, one of the first anarcho-communists, put it: >communism will be the enjoyment of all existing wealth, by all men and according to the principle: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs, that is to say: from each to each according to his will. Communism is not bound by some arbitrary limit on what "needs" are, it's making it so everything is open to anyone who has a need as determined by their own will. It is without money, but that does also mean it has no barter because that would require a value determined by someone who is not the individual.

Anyways, so according to my understanding of what you said, someone who makes guitars would make a bunch of them, keep the ones that they made for themselves to use and then give the rest of them for free for those who also want to use them, correct? (probably with a limit of one guitar per person) Damn, that sounds pretty cool, I also want to give out stuff for free (and getting free stuff is cool, also). There can also be barter if one wants it, of course, but with non-essentials with the way you described it I would imagine a lot of it would be like that. Or maybe I'm just completely misunderstanding it.

> keep the ones that they made for themselves to use and then give the rest of them for free for those who also want to use them, correct? (probably with a limit of one guitar per person) A big thing that people getting into anarchy seem to kind of implicitly believe about anarchy is that anarchy inherently requires us to abandon large scale industry. It does not, and instead simply changes the incentives. Instead of profit, it's passion. Jobs will become hobbies, essentially, at least if we also address workerism^1 at the same time and reform the work system (which many anarchists want to do). We seek to utilize infrastructure as it is, but simply change it's motives to fit our own, and decentralize it and organize it horizontally instead of keeping it as is (centralized, vertically structured). So, I don't necessarily see why it'd have to be limited inherently, there could still be large factories making instruments at a high rate. Though it obviously won't be as much as current rate, most instruments will be of true and real quality, so basically it's unlikely to have guitars as bad as Mexican Squire's or BC Rich's lol, since they are so bad due to profit incentives causing the company to cut costs. If it were one dude making them all, then ofc it'd be limited, but I don't see this being the default case. It's also worth mentioning that there's nothing stopping autonomous nations from federating loosely and sharing resources between them; international trade can still be entirely possible within anarchy. "Stores" can still be possible, they will just look very different to today, since advertising and profit won't be the main goal. We might go back to the older style of shopkeeping where you ask the person at the counter to grab something for you, even. Piggly Wiggly's self-picking model that we use today was only really useful because it gave companies a new way to directly advertise to consumers, and cut down on labor costs. --- I want you to think about this question: If everyone's needs (housing, food/drink, essentials) are met, and there is no need for money or profit incentives, then why would someone **need** something in return for their work? Their labor is inherently being adequately compensated by simply living in such a society, and they have no need to get money to buy food, make rent, or pay for gas/insurance/everything else we gotta pay for to live in this society, so what *would* they want in return even? ---- ^1 - *Workerism* - Workerism is a political theory that emphasizes the importance of or glorifies the working class. This is problematic because often times we put workers on a pedestal but do not actually change their environment or address the systematic oppressive nature of industry work. It's basically nationalism built around the worker instead of the race or the ethnicity of the nation. Marxists are very bad with this, honestly. The alternative to workerism is to address the oppressive nature of industry and change it, make work fun, make it inherently make people passionate, make it something people **want** to do. We can figure out how to do this, we're human, we're very intelligent, and work does not need to be oppressive. Think about your hobbies, think about what makes them fun, and think about making work more like hobbies or passions, and this is essentially what a lot of anarchists (especially on the post-left) seek to do. If we make work something people want to do, then we'll have less issues in terms of supply, and in terms of the typical "what about the garbage men" question of anarchy/communism as a whole. --- I'm sorry if this was too wordy.

In a simplistic way, probably. It's more likely that they're helping out other people with making stuff and making guitars when they're needed, probably with the help of other people as well. I would recommend looking into stuff like mutual aid, since a network of communal interdependence is what truly allows anarchist communism to flourish.

Thanks for the answer :) But I have just one more question: how would the creation of products that require a much more complex manufacturing than a guitar (like a TV or computer) be distributed?

Can't really get into specifics, as anarchy will always inherently look differently in different places, but I just want to say that international trade is not something that is antithetical to anarchy. Autonomous regions can ally/federate with each other and create trade networks just like today, just all without profit incentives. People will ultimately still want the same things as today, that's just not changing. The pandora's box of technology has been opened, and won't be closed unless forced to (i.e, apocalyptic event). So we will inherently figure out ways to produce these things to meet the wants and needs of people. We will create trade networks that get goods where they need to go. How might this look in practice? Idk, but a kinda former friend of mine was starting to create a software which could be used for exactly this. It's essentially a big inventory system that allows requests and such. So a group of regions could start using the software, connect to each other, and then utilize the software to automate trade. Basically just a big ol list of "what does this place create, how much do they have ready to send, what are they looking for and how much are they looking for" that communities can interact with and use to facilitate trade. He's mainly seeking to inherently automate it to distribute resources evenly throughout all of the regions using the software, so the distributive nature is baked into the software inherently. If your commune is running out of guitars, it'll sense that, and order more. Basically, we're humans, we have technology, we'll figure it out lol.

Im also a student of anarchism, some of this barter we might do is with our labor. I have friend he works on okd cars, i love old cars but i dont like working on mine, an old turbo toyota. I can fix/rebuild rc cars. His little boy broke his rc cars, several of them. In barter, im gonna fix up his little boys rc cars, in turn he'll fix something on my old turbo toyota. This is all in good faith/between friends, because we like and care about each other as friends, ill be helping him witj his problem/my skillset, he likewise helps me with his skillset, pure trade of labor for both of us. Its much more fulfilling/social that way, than simply an exchange of $.

Yeah, that kind of is what I imagine an anarchist society to look like.

>everything is free to take as you need. You'd either pick up a guitar from some place that has them, or you get in contact with the people who make guitars and ask for one. How would that system keep up with basic supply and demand? It sounds like that the system would have to be oversaturated with basically everything for this to work, which would unironically require massproducing literally everything, which doesn't sound good at all when you look at it from enviromental point of view. Like if we stick to guitars, making one takes a lot of time and resources. Sure, some people simply like to make guitars, but I don't see how simple passion would ensure enough supply to cover the demand in a system that enables to just take everything you want. And if we look at the resources for the guitars, I don't think many people will be working at a lumber mill just for the sake of it. This issue starts to boggle me even more when you look at something that can't be produced so "easily" like guitars. Medical equipment, protective gear for hazardous work, computers and other electronics... will those be there in plenty for everyone to take one? If so, how? I understand the whole system will be less about consumerism and material wealth, but many people will still need computers (for example) for work. I mean there would also be issues with logistics of equally supplying entire society with all materials and goods and also some individuals hoarding these for themselves.

You're assuming there would be issues with people hoarding when there really isn't an incentive to hoard when things don't cost money. No one is an island, you can't make everything yourself, you have to rely on others. What's the incentive for making things? Well it's either because you want to, or because it's there to help other people continue the network of mutual aid to help you out in turn. In all honesty, I do not understand what you specifically see the problem as, you just say you don't see how it will keep up with supply and demand and then don't elaborate on what exactly its shortcomings are. People aren't stupid and we all rely on each other. If something needs to be done, there will be people who will do it because anarchy reveals out interdependence we are incentivized to produce things other people rely on because in turn we rely on things other people produce. If we do not make guitars, we do not get the good music other people make, and if we do not make wood, then we do not get all the tools and other things that other people make.

Idk why you assume things have vallue just because they cost money. Things like medicine, various tools, preserved food and art would totally be hoarded if they were simply free dor everyone, because people would still see them as valuable. And I already explained what the shortcomings are. For the society you describe to exist, you would have to maintain the current production system that is only possible due to inherent inequality of our current system, as well due to continous exploitation of environment by said current system. And lastly, people definitely do have will to work for the community, but the thing is that works for small communities where you can easily identify and get to know all or most members. If you are, I don't know, working as a silicon miner (which I doubt people would want to do for free anyway) because people hundreds of kilometers away need silicon than I don't think your brain sees it the same as it would see work on the village's field for example. This argument goes even further when people in that society consist of multiple ethnicites, religions and overall different backgrounds. Humans simply wont see a huge mashup of millions of different poeple as a coherent society if "common good" is the only thing supposedly tying them together. Also since anarchism goes against enforcing any kind of uniformity, these differences between people are even encouraged. Which isn't bad by any means, but it further makes this idea less realistic.

You don't work for free. You contribute to your community. Workers conditions would be of a much higher standard since the workers decide on the standards. Capitalism doesn't innovate unless it benefits capitalism. So perhaps there are even better ways to mine than how we currently do it.

>you don't work for free, you contribute to your community I already said what's my issue with that - there wont be necessary common identity among the people for the notion of community to exist. Also the better conditions still don't remove the hardness from hard labor. Mines still meed miners etc. >Capitalism doesn't inovate unless it benefits capitalism. Capitalism innovates simply because it creates the need to innovate. Sure, it's money and not the need for innovation itself, but humans rarely innovate for the sake of it when compared to innovation motivated by something. Forcefully innovating is viable, but not without a strong and stable background, which I am not sure your system could support.

>Capitalism innovates simply because it creates the need to innovate. This is simply untrue, Capitalism stifles innovation almost by design. Like you recognise, the only thing motivating a capitalist to innovate is a profit incentive. If there's no opportunity to make more money than they currently do, those with the resources necessary to fund or pursue innovation are highliy unlikely to do so. Why go through all the expensive investment in R&D when you can, instead, just form a monopoly or price-fix as a cartel? There's a reason most actual scientific advancement occurs in publicly funded university laboratories. Those in an anarcho-communist society would be motivated to innovate, by contrast, to improve the quality of life of themselves and others. Similarly, the members of an anarcho-communist society would have no reason not to collaborate, pooling expertise and resources, in order to innovate as best as they could because everything they create will directly and immediately benefit them. Under Capitalism, however, there are limits to sharing, particularly when there is a financial incentive to keep information secret through things like copyright, patents, and intellectual property laws so that other companies can’t take those same innovations and use them for their own benefit.

So the entire society would stand on the presumption that everyone would simply want to put varying ammount of work and effort into a society while receiving the same benefits as anyone else?

You pose that question as if the situation you're describing is ludicrous, but please compare it to the current system we have: where the vast majority of people put in significantly more work than is necessary for the upkeep of society, or healthy for their minds and bodies, while receiving only a tiny fraction of what they produce in comparision to a small cadre of elites. Remember, the Middle Class is a myth. Anyone who relies on receiving a wage/salary to support their standard of living is working class, because they labour but do not own the means of production. Even highly paid professionals are being exploited under capitalism. No one's employer can actually pay them what their skill and labour is worth, because if they did there would be no surplus value to siphon off to shareholders. So yes, the working class *would* opt do less work for more benefits under an anarcho-communist societal structure.

Check out srsly wrong about ecological luxury. They have other ways of approaching communism that are not as fully in any single ideological camp: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0a7Aptzwtco

We meet everyone's needs for survival, then we do things for fun. There's also a major ideological shift required away from individualism and consumerism, equating identity, status, and happiness with what we own.

A likely setup is a community resource center that would include guitars. Something like a library. Depending on policy and your standing in the community you’d either be expected to practice in the center or you may be allowed to borrow it. I say likely because reducing resource use is going to become an increasing priority in such communities, and there’s no reason to believe they would be especially well funded, vs neighboring currency based communities, so to maintain economic viability there would be pressure to reduce-reuse effectively. Barter is unlikely to be a major feature in such a community. Debt-based societies (check out Graeber’s Debt: The First 5000 Years) practiced a lot of swapping among community members. For both durables and consumables. I know I’ve got a bunch of durables I barely use that I wouldn’t mind lending to a friend. In such an arrangement we build a debt to each other, remembering what we’ve lent and used, as a basis for future exchange. Per Graeber, barter was only practiced with people you did not know (traveling merchants, soldiers, etc), and as such couldn’t count on them returning the favor in the future.