Is there any good austrian economic writings (not political-historical writings, I have already read the caplan essay) on any libertarian socialist communities?
If there isn’t, why not?
I typed it into the literature search (with quotes) and got about 5 entries, none of which were what I was looking for. I did find an article saying that libertarian socialism and capitalism could co-exist (I doubt that). Thing is that I don’t care for ethics.
The socialist calculation argument applies just as much if there is no state as we know it. In other words, it applies just as much to voluntary communes/co-ops as communist dictatorships, although one could assert that the former would probably work ever-so-slightly better because all participate voluntarily.
No. And Caplan isn’t an Austrian; in fact, I believe he’s the only non-Austrian in George Mason University’s economics department. Moreover, there has been a rebuttal issued to Caplan’s essay (to which I don’t believe Caplan’s responded) by Iain McKay, principal author of An Anarchist FAQ. I also focus on both sides’ perspectives in my criticism section of the Spanish Revolution Wikipedia article. Going off-topic a bit, Caplan’s problem is that he tries to bite off more than he can chew. He wasn’t going to bury the legacy of anarchism’s practical existence through one essay among any serious scholars, and while I’m personally not a fan of much of Austrian economics, he wasn’t going to bury the entire school through one essay either, and was subjected to what Walter Block described as an “Austrian pile-on” from Block, Hoppe, and Barnett.
The closest to what you’re looking for comes through Murray Rothbard’s The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists and James Ostrowski’s Chomsky’s Economics (directed at Noam Chomsky specifically, but applicable to all anarchists and “libertarian socialists”). The problem is that neither one is a very serious theoretical work or indicative of deep knowledge of anarchist theory. Of more distant relation is Ludwig von Mises’s commentary on syndicalism in chapter 16 of Socialism and chapter 33 of Human Action. The problem here is that apart from his poor understanding of the theories he attempts to discuss, syndicalism is merely an aspect of anarchist and libertarian theory, and is not an exclusive one, at that.
Anarchism and libertarianism, unlike Marxism, were not regarded as well-developed economic theories due to the fact that Marxists had always focused on more theoretical discourse and anarchists on practical action. This is the basis for Mises dismissively mocking “Proudhon’s fantastic dreams of an ‘exchange bank’” in Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth without elaboration, and Hayek’s Socialism and War remarks that "[t]he earlier systems of more decentralized socialism like guild-socialism or syndicalism need not concern us here since it seems now to be fairly generally admitted that they provide no mechanism whatever for a rational direction of economic activity" without any further exploration into who exactly it was that “generally admitted” any such thing.
So do I, as socialism requires the public ownership of the means of production and capitalism the private ownership of the means of production. That sort of comment is usually made by the less militant “anarcho”-capitalists per their fallacious idea of privately established collectives and communes constituting “socialism.” While I can’t be openly contemptuous at the olive branch, I simply don’t agree, as socialism is nonexistent if the means of production are not collectivized and the concentration that characterizes capitalism will prevent the natural occurrence of this through market exchange.
I understand the sentiment, and switched from philosophy (ethics) to economics myself, but anarchism and libertarianism do derive much of their appeal from ethical issues.
It does not, actually; consult Section I.1.1 of the FAQ. The irony is that the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin actually articulated criticism of central planning before Mises did (and unlike Mises, protested it to Lenin’s face), which is found in its most condensed form in his 1919 postscript to Words of a Rebel, which was published the year before the publication of Mises’s aforementioned 1920 essay:
As mentioned, the entire libertarian approach went virtually ignored by the Austrian school (Mises did devote the aforementioned irrelevant cutting remark to Proudhon in his essay without actual argument), which placed focus on central planning mechanisms and procedures on account of the emergence of them in the economic structure of a country which was to later become a superpower of the world. That was their first failure.
Secondly, democratic market socialists have progressed beyond the mere punch in the gut that the development of the bureaucratic Lange model presented to Mises and have utilized Hayek’s insights into dispersed knowledge problems to form a sound basis for advocacy of a decentralized market economy reliant on workers’ ownership and management and in some cases a stakeholder economy, with Theodore Burczak in particular being integral in the development of “post-Hayekian” socialism, which even major Austrian scholars (Boettke, Prychitko, Horwitz) have admitted is serious. With the absence of any major Austrian argument against dispersedly planned socialism (with Mises incorrectly dismissing much of it as “workers’ syndicalism,” which he regarded as a form of capitalism), and the more recent development of adaptation of Hayek’s insights by market socialists, that was the basis for the Austrians’ loss of the socialist calculation debate.
At any rate, I’m sure there will be a response to my comments, and while I don’t want to give the impression that I’m neglecting matters that I jump into, I might not visit the forum again today or this week, as it’s my birthday today and I’ll be too busy throughout the weekend to deal with a horde, even if quality does beat quantity. 
No. And Caplan isn’t an Austrian; in fact, I believe he’s the only non-Austrian in George Mason University’s economics department. Moreover, there has been a rebuttal issued to Caplan’s essay (to which I don’t believe Caplan’s responded) by Iain McKay, principal author of An Anarchist FAQ. I also focus on both sides’ perspectives in my criticism section of the Spanish Revolution Wikipedia article. Going off-topic a bit, Caplan’s problem is that he tries to bite off more than he can chew. He wasn’t going to bury the legacy of anarchism’s practical existence through one essay among any serious scholars, and while I’m personally not a fan of much of Austrian economics, he wasn’t going to bury the entire school through one essay either, and was subjected to what Walter Block described as an “Austrian pile-on” from Block, Hoppe, and Barnett.
The closest to what you’re looking for comes through Murray Rothbard’s The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists and James Ostrowski’s Chomsky’s Economics (directed at Noam Chomsky specifically, but applicable to all anarchists and “libertarian socialists”). The problem is that neither one is a very serious theoretical work or indicative of deep knowledge of anarchist theory. Of more distant relation is Ludwig von Mises’s commentary on syndicalism in chapter 16 of Socialism and chapter 33 of Human Action. The problem here is that apart from his poor understanding of the theories he attempts to discuss, syndicalism is merely an aspect of anarchist and libertarian theory, and is not an exclusive one, at that.
Anarchism and libertarianism, unlike Marxism, were not regarded as well-developed economic theories due to the fact that Marxists had always focused on more theoretical discourse and anarchists on practical action. This is the basis for Mises dismissively mocking “Proudhon’s fantastic dreams of an ‘exchange bank’” in Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth without elaboration, and Hayek’s Socialism and War remarks that "[t]he earlier systems of more decentralized socialism like guild-socialism or syndicalism need not concern us here since it seems now to be fairly generally admitted that they provide no mechanism whatever for a rational direction of economic activity" without any further exploration into who exactly it was that “generally admitted” any such thing.
So do I, as socialism requires the public ownership of the means of production and capitalism the private ownership of the means of production. That sort of comment is usually made by the less militant “anarcho”-capitalists per their fallacious idea of privately established collectives and communes constituting “socialism.” While I can’t be openly contemptuous at the olive branch, I simply don’t agree, as socialism is nonexistent if the means of production are not collectivized and the concentration that characterizes capitalism will prevent the natural occurrence of this through market exchange.
I understand the sentiment, and switched from philosophy (ethics) to economics myself, but anarchism and libertarianism do derive much of their appeal from ethical issues.
It does not, actually; consult Section I.1.1 of the FAQ. The irony is that the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin actually articulated criticism of central planning before Mises did (and unlike Mises, protested it to Lenin’s face), which is found in its most condensed form in his 1919 postscript to Words of a Rebel, which was published the year before the publication of Mises’s aforementioned 1920 essay:
As mentioned, the entire libertarian approach went virtually ignored by the Austrian school (Mises did devote the aforementioned irrelevant cutting remark to Proudhon in his essay without actual argument), which placed focus on central planning mechanisms and procedures on account of the emergence of them in the economic structure of a country which was to later become a superpower of the world. That was their first failure.
Secondly, democratic market socialists have progressed beyond the mere punch in the gut that the development of the bureaucratic Lange model presented to Mises and have utilized Hayek’s insights into dispersed knowledge problems to form a sound basis for advocacy of a decentralized market economy reliant on workers’ ownership and management and in some cases a stakeholder economy, with Theodore Burczak in particular being integral in the development of “post-Hayekian” socialism, which even major Austrian scholars (Boettke, Prychitko, Horwitz) have admitted is serious. With the absence of any major Austrian argument against dispersedly planned socialism (with Mises incorrectly dismissing much of it as “workers’ syndicalism,” which he regarded as a form of capitalism), and the more recent development of adaptation of Hayek’s insights by market socialists, that was the basis for the Austrians’ loss of the socialist calculation debate.
Try this from human action: Syndicalism
Hey Leviathan , read it also.
for the sake of brevity, you should stop using these names since no one here listens to them or takes them that seriously (except for giles stratton).
Thank you leviathan.
Because you claim that this has not been done I feel like I have to do the work for myself. Can you answer some questions? Or link answers to questions? If you think any of my premises are wrong, no need to be hostile, I am sure you will correct me.
I have read the FAQ, and honestly I can’t stand that thing. Its tone is unusually hostile. I most likely perceive it that way because its criticisms are aimed mostly at Right-Libertarians. If you it isn’t to much work, I would ask that you link me to something that isn’t the FAQ.
The questions are designed to see if you, an intelligent, well written Anarchist, can adequately answer these questions or link me to those answers. If you can I will have to take Anarchism seriously and investigate it more on my own. If you can’t, I can save myself time by dismissing it. For indulging me you get the opportunity to explain your ideas to someone who isn’t just trying to knock them down, but legitimately trying to understand them. Feel free to speak for all Anarchists.
Economic Questions: I need to know just the basics of how this will work. I want to know how the leaders of a firm would go about starting and developing a firm. Feel free to explain it from the perspective o
In an Anarchist economy, who or what signals production?
In an Anarchist economy, how does a group of people go about raising capital?
Political Questions: I basically am trying to figure out if an Anarchists society will just re-develop into an authoritarian state, but with a guild system instead of a corporatist system. This actually my largest problem with Anarchism
Are Anarchists actually serious about abolishing the state, or do they just mean they are going to make it really local? If they are serious about it, will they collectivise courts and police? and how will this not be a state? It seems like Anarchists think the abolition of private property necessitates the abolition of the state (because the state protects private property, if there is no private property, there can not be said to be any state).
If there is a state, how will they prevent the usual bullshit from happening (the state hooking up specific groups of producers, always at the expense of other consumers and producers)?
Cultural Questions: Motives?
Do anarchists believe that their systems will make work fun, give life meaning, or create a sense of unity in a culture? Remember what I said about fascism and anarchism having to much in common.
EDIT: Oh and is democratic market socialism similar mutualism?
I started to skim it, and saw this little gem:
Indeed, by suppressing capital markets in favour of simple commodity production, a mutualist system will improve upon capitalism by removing an important source of perverse incentives which hinder long term investment and social responsibility in addition to reducing inequalities, increasing freedom and improving general economic performance.
I stopped reading after that.
Sounds like it was taken straight form Sraffa.