"If the syndicate in question, after a certain number of complaints had been lodged against it, still did not change its ways, then it would suffer non-violent direct action. This would involve the boycotting of the syndicate and (perhaps) its local commune with products and investment, so resulting in the syndicate being excluded from the benefits of association. The syndicate would face the fact that no one else wanted to associate with it and suffer a drop in the goods coming its way, including consumption products for its members. In effect, a similar process would occur to that of a firm under capitalism that looses its customers and so its income. However, we doubt that a free society would subject any person to the evils of destitution or starvation (as capitalism does). Rather, it would provide a bare minimum of goods required for survival would still be available."

cały artykuł

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI4.html#seci46

koleś kilka akapitów wyżej jęczy, jakie to złe, że na rynbku jak nie potrafisz dobrze pracować, to nei jesz. no oczywiście niepracujący dobrze kolektyw i nie dostajacy w zamian nic i tak z głodu nie umrze, bo będą się nad nim litować ("Rather, it would provide a bare minimum of goods required for survival would still be available."). oczywiście. możliwe. tylko do k nędzy, powiedzcie mi, CZYM to sie różni od rynku, zwłaszcza, że wszystkie ograniczenia w swobodzie wymiany będa przyjmowane dobrowolnie...