> I just think that any complex technologically-advanced society will have markets present somewhere in its economic system because of the nature of knowledge in society.
That (especially how you inserted "knowledge" there) is straight of Hayek and The Mont Perelin handbook, it's neoliberalism 101.
Neoliberalism is not a political position. Neoliberalism is a philosophical position that can sometimes be summarizes as belief that the market is an abstract entity that (as the metaphor goes) is a "super-information processor" that is smarter than any of us (individually) or all of us put together could ever be. It has a very dim and dark view of human beings.
Just take a listen to this lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw1TNf7YwHA
The economist historian/historian of science (and best scholar on neoliberalism and Hayek) Philip Mirowski is very quick to show understand what "knowledge" and "information" in a very
He details this "knowledge" very well in his two books The Knowledge We Have Lost in Information : the history of information in modern economics and Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=4BDEF554A44E489287DEDB3F08FF8B53
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=F74EBFD5AAA65A8ADD74A3AA8A56EEA0
His earlier book Machine Dreams Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science deals very well with all the "efficiency" bullshit. My favorite book on neoliberalism is definitely The Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty and the Logic of Competition by William Davies.
Markets are tend to have thin commitments to/and most of the very time are very hostile to "knowledge" (as people understand it in the vernacular sense) localities, cultures and ways of life.
If you're dealt with markets enough, you probably intuitively know that.
The association of market with anti-statism is quite an anomaly, as the anthropological record shows, there has never been markets without some states nearby, at pretty much any point in history. You could almost say that a state is a precondition for the existence of markets.
(Other the fact that the markets require judiciary systems enforcing property "rights", defining and enforcing what counts as a "commodity" and of course, enforcing contracts).
The two (market and state), unlike what the holy scriptures handed to us by liberalism claim, have always been intimately linked.
One of the only times there ever was a minimal state with strong markets (that old liberalism talked about) is Medieval Islam with its civil courts, but that's certainly not something you'd want to replicate, and it's very far from any sort of anarchy.
(It's not a coincidence that Liberal authors like Adam Smith took/got a lot of their stuff from Medieval Islamic authors).
When you get rid of states, markets follow (go away) pretty quickly (unless you're with outsiders states, but if you get rid of states all-together that won't be a problem).
As David Graeber says:
"This is a great trap of the twentieth century: on one side is the logic of the market, where we like to imagine we all start out as individuals who don't owe each other anything. On the other is the logic of the state, where we all begin with a debt we can never truly pay. We are constantly told that they are opposites, and that between them they contain the only real human possibilities. But it's a false dichotomy. States created markets. Markets require states. Neither could continue without the other, at least, in anything like the forms we would recognize today." (from Debt: The First 5,000 Years, p.71)
> And what are you in favour?
If I had to name a system I like, I would say I like the system the people in the Amazonian region of Peru had and still to an extent:
https://www.amazon.com/Under-Watchful-Eye-Ethnographic-Subjectivity/dp/0520273605
The "demand-sharing" system of the Bushmen of southern Africa and Namibia are cool too:
https://www.amazon.com/Affluence-Without-Abundance-Disappearing-Bushmen/dp/1632865726
https://www.amazon.com/Anthropology-Economy-Sharing-Critical-Contemporary-ebook/dp/B01M01BVSD
If you want to read on this I recommend the two volumes Property and Equality: Volume I: Ritualization, Sharing, Egalitarianism and Property and Equality: Volume II: Encapsulation, Commercialization, Discrimination:
https://www.amazon.com/Property-Equality-Ritualization-Sharing-Egalitarianism/dp/157181616X/
Gibson and Sillander's Anarchic Solidarity: Autonomy, Equality, and Fellowship in Southeast Asia is also very good:
https://www.amazon.com/Anarchic-Solidarity-Fellowship-Southeast-Monograph/dp/0938692941
"In other words, despite the dogged liberal assumption—again, coming from Smith’s legacy—that the existence of states and markets are somehow opposed, the historical record implies that exactly the opposite is the case. Stateless societies tend also to be without markets". (From Debt)
Anarchism is against blueprints and telling people what to do and how to behave. That's like anachy101
If I had to name a system I like, I would say I like the system the people in the Amazonian region of Peru had and still to an extent:
https://www.amazon.com/Under-Watchful-Eye-Ethnographic-Subjectivity/dp/0520273605
The "demand-sharing" system of the Bushmen of southern Africa and Namibia are cool too:
https://www.amazon.com/Affluence-Without-Abundance-Disappearing-Bushmen/dp/1632865726
https://www.amazon.com/Anthropology-Economy-Sharing-Critical-Contemporary-ebook/dp/B01M01BVSD
If you want to read on this I recommend the two volumes Property and Equality: Volume I: Ritualization, Sharing, Egalitarianism and Property and Equality: Volume II: Encapsulation, Commercialization, Discrimination:
https://www.amazon.com/Property-Equality-Ritualization-Sharing-Egalitarianism/dp/157181616X/
Gibson and Sillander's Anarchic Solidarity: Autonomy, Equality, and Fellowship in Southeast Asia is also very good:
https://www.amazon.com/Anarchic-Solidarity-Fellowship-Southeast-Monograph/dp/0938692941