Many social philosophers have expressed a desire to end capitalism as the dominant mode of production. However, I take it as an unavoidable fact of nature that labor of some form is necessary. Humans, being organisms, need to sustain themselves, and to do that they must put in work somehow - be it by fashioning tools and hunting wild animals, or trading time for currency that can be used to buy food, water, shelter, etc. So, given that labor is unavoidable (especially so in a world where none are living off of the exploitation of the labor of others), how do anti-capitalists envision labor in a world without capitalism?
From Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, page 26
Homage to Catalonia, Orwell's description of the Spanish conflict, which he wrote after completing a stint as an active member of the POUM militia, is still a book to which people (including Chomsky) who are interested in successful socialist or anarchist movements refer, because it gives an accurate and moving description of a working libertarian society.
Homage to Catalonia is available on Audible.
The Routledge Dictionary of Economics gives 4 definitions of capitalism, although it acknowledges that Marx was critical of these definitions:
- A socioeconomic system of production using roundabout methods of production.
Labor in this system will look the same as labor under a non-capitalist system. The difference is in how the capital generated by the labor is used. In capitalism, enough capital is generated to produce profit and that profit is used to improve the efficiency of capital production. If either of those two steps are missing, under this definition the economic system is not capitalism. I would argue that the economic system of indigenous North-East American tribes would fit this description based on lectures given by a college professor.
- An economy based on private enterprise.
Two definitions are provided by the same source for 'private enterprise'. The first references capitalism, and would therefor result in a paradox if used in conjunction with this definition. The other is "The private sector of an economy," and private sector is defined as "That part of the economy consisting of firms owned by legal persons other than the state." Therefor, a economic system is not capitalism if the majority of economic activity is done by firms owned by the state. The USSR* is the traditional example of such a economy.*
- The use of markets not planning to allocate economic resources.
'Markets' are defined as "A medium for exchanges between buyers and sellers." Therefor, non-capitalist economies have exchanging planned by entities besides the buyers and sellers. Unless you define 'exchange' so generally to make it applicable to every social system, which is one of Marx's criticisms, the tradition kibbutz fulfills this definition.
- Production motivated by the profit motive.
Under this definition, two economic system that are identical can be categorized differently if the culture of one's society values the profit motive while the other's does not. Labor would look identical.
Modern opponents of capitalism in Western societies, in my experience, have defined capitalism using the first or third definitions and endorse the economic systems I described there.
Edit: I found a free version of the dictionary so I changed the link.