> Obviously there are lots of complexities and uncertainties that such a society would need to navigate, but the main thrust is that if we abolish private property, there is no longer a role for money to play.

I'm still having a bit of trouble with this, and rather than trying to put it into words, I think an example would be more useful.

Say you have Bob. Bob wants a cake for a celebration. He could make it himself, but he's not that great at it and it might not turn out so hot. However, he knows Dave bakes great cakes, the best you can get in the local area. Now they're not exactly friends, so Dave probably won't take the time to bake the cake just because Bob asks (if it was life or death, that's another matter, but ultimately it's just a cake). But! Bob is a great artist, and he knows Dave wants a painting of his family. An offer is made and agreed to, Bob gets a cake, and Dave gets a painting.

Now, this type of exchange seems like one where just having some money as an abstraction of labor that could be stored and transferred at will would be useful, rather than having to perform all labor as it comes.

So I guess, how would this transaction go down in an Anarchist society? Would this type of transaction take place in an Anarchist society? Does Bob ever get good cake and does Dave ever get a nice painting? Is it just assumed that, in an anarchist society, every Bob and Dave are good enough friends to do this type of non-critical "luxury" labor just as part of the friendship? Are the communities just small enough so that Bob's celebrations are Dave's celebrations and vice versa?

Also, any recommended reading/places where I could badger with lots of questions, because my mental wheels keep spinning off into unknown unknowns as I try to figure out what such a society would look like and how/if it would be able to supply services like modern medicine, or the internet, or widescale publication of literature, etc etc etc

I've heard Ideal Anarchism referred to as a "Stateless, Classless, Moneyless, society"

Now, studiously trying to avoid a political debate, what does the "Moneyless" part of that entail? While money can of course be used in a corrupt manner, it is at base, as far as I understand, an abstraction of the value of human labor used to make exchanges of good and services easier and more efficient.

By calling for an abolition of money, it seems like they'd be calling for an abolition of such exchanges. Which even if all primary needs are met by communal contribution, seems like it would needlessly limit long-range trade and a whole host of interpersonal interactions.

Have I misunderstood or misrepresented something? Because while I can kind of grok what a stateless and classless society would look like, and why some might advocate for it, a moneyless one just seems like it would be going back to the barter system for no particular reason.

I've never understood the issue that anarchists have with money. It can certainly be used coercively, but fundamentally it is just a representation and abstraction of human labor and productivity.

Claiming that money as a concept should be abolished seems tantamount to saying that the trade of goods and services between individuals should be abolished.

The other part that really stood out to me was >anarcho-primitivism does not entail the ludicrous refusal of all technology (such as fire, pottery or even agriculture, which, incidentally predates the horrors of state-run farms)... >it certainly doesn’t entail, as some critics like to believe, a recommendation for the extermination of mankind.

Which seems to be trying to have it's cake and eat it too. Quite simply, the world can not sustain its current population with the extremely limited agricultural technology proposed. Advocating for a return to the primitive agricultural technology proposed is either profound ignorance or advocating for the death of billions.

There were other minor quibbles where I don't believe it would turn out as the author proposes, but those were two things that really stood out to me.