Separate social enclaves, each stipulating mandatory adherence to a particular system of property dependent on territory, would create a scenario tantamount to private statism. If someone was born into a capitalist enclave then they’d have the choice of participating in capitalism or relocating elsewhere, away from their friends and family. Such a mindset bears frightening similarities to so-called national anarchism, except with people being segregated by economy rather than race. This isn’t anarchy at all, but would result in a form of nationhood.
Anarchists don’t believe in enclosure, so setting up private enclaves would not be in keeping with anarchist principles. Anarchy is a free society without borders, and people would be at liberty to participate in any economic implementation. Ancoms for instance, just want to be afforded the freedom to live as communists. That’s what the economic qualifier denotes: not that they expect the whole of anarchy to adhere to communism, or even that they plan to form a communist enclave, only that they desire to participate in communism.
The various forms of individualist and collectivist anarchism are not mutually exclusive. Anarchy would be an integrated mix of all non-propertarian systems, with people choosing which to economy to align with. Outlets (stores) would trade goods and services among themselves, in order that everyone had access to whatevet they needed.
Individualism, mutualism, syndicalism, collectivism, and communism would all function alongside one another, not in separate territories or even cities, but actually integrated with one another and woven into the fabric of society. People would select an economy, and this would tie the product of their labour into their consumption, for whatever period they chose to participate in a particular system. If someone had multiple jobs then theoretically they could link into multiple economies.
If someone chose to be an individualist, then they could either trade their products directly (perhaps even functioning as an individualist outlet), or opt to exchange their labour for a monetary wage, which they could spend in any outlet that accepted it.
For mutualists, their labour would be routed through a labour exchange, which would link to a consumer account that would be accepted by various outlets.
Syndicalists would have the choice of being paid in credit or product/service. The outlets of whatever syndicate their cooperative was federated to might also provide a level of free consumption, like a restricted version of a gift economy.
Collectivists would participate in a token system, proving they had worked in order to qualify for access to collectivist outlets.
For someone who chose to be a communist, the product of their labour would go directly to the communist economy, without remuneration, and they would have their consumption met without charge by communist outlets. Easy to track in the information age.
People would of course remain at liberty to trade whatever was within their possession.
Some outlets may opt not to be exclusive to one economy, but to act as inter-economic hubs, where various economies would exchange directly with one another. For example the product of gift economy could be exchanged for something out with the gift economy, and whatever was obtained from said exchange would then enter the gift economy. If the exchange was made in credit then the outlet could purchase whatever was needed for it’s primary economy.
For example a communist hub would exchange goods and services with non-communists for money, and utilise that money in exchange with other outlets to import scarce goods into the gift economy. An individualist might visit a communist hub to procure the services of an electrician. He would pay the hub in money. The hub might use that money to purchase some turkeys from a syndicalist outlet. The communist electrician might later freely acquire one of those turkeys from the communist hub, along with whatever else she needed. There would be no overt separation. Anarchy is not under the sway of one dominant economic system, if anything there is a freed market in economic systems (unlike now).
The result would be multiple economies integrated, cooperating, and exchanging with one another, all according to individual preference. Anarchists do NOT suggest that:
A. their’s is the only system allowed.
B. that other systems can operate within their system.
C. that different systems should inhabit their own separate communities, let alone their own separate geographical territories.