There's a new (different) term that has turned up lately: "voluntarism". It is defined a like this:
the principle of relying on voluntary action (used especially with reference to the involvement of voluntary organizations in social welfare).
the doctrine that the will is a fundamental or dominant factor in the individual or the universe.
I've highlighted the concept in bold/italicized letters as it pertains to/in philosophy. As I remember it, we had agreed that most, if not all social orders fail when a few, call it government, form a notion that they know what is best for everyone. And if said government is benevolent, and said order works well enough, then there seems to be someone who wishes to infiltrate the otherwise benevolent government and tear it down from the inside.
These people have control issues, as in: they like to control the lives of others. And if a social order is working, and people are free to do as needed to meet their basic needs, then that's an social order that is difficult to control, hence the desire to tear it apart.
In all my studies of the various social orders, Imperialism and capitalism are the worst.
Here's a little story regarding tribal orders of the indigenous peoples from all around the world, I'm reiterating mostly the commonalities among these peoples.
Most anywhere you go, there will be people living near the coast line, and others living in the mountains, and yet others living in the flat-lands. Those near the coast will have plenty of sea food, a stock of seashells and the like that they can freely trade, The flat-landers will have a range of meats form the various animals who free range the prairies, and they have access to things like flint, precious stones and a climate worthy to plant and grow food items. The mountain people would have access to trees that grow at the higher elevations where pinion nuts, pine cones and vines for weaving baskets is plentiful. It's a leisurely lifestyle to take any excess whatever and travel to nearby villages and trade, where from there, those who where involved in the trading can travel to other villages, until everything, every tribe has to offer, is distributed throughout the region.
Maybe the coast dweller are tired of eating fish, much of the time, but know very little about trapping/hunting game animals. With a few days travel, they can be in a region where game animals are plentiful and trade some dried fish and necklaces made from sea shells for some game meat,
I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at here, there was no need of money, just 'stuff' that is more common to an area in which one lives, that can be traded for things that aren't common in other area.
The problem with capitalism is that it ALWAYS runs-a-muck, because someone gets greedy and wants a 'fast profit' and they want it NOW. Money can be a nice medium of exchange providing it has the same value, regardless of where is came from, and where it is spent. As soon any kind of 'usury' enters the picture, or any imposition of an exchange rate, the money will lose its value.
Where am I going with this? I always like to turn to Nature and see how she works. Nothing on this planet was not already here, before we got here. All of it is freely given to everyone, without exception. Nothing like ethnic upbringing, hair/eye/skin color is ever a consideration, nor is money required when Nature gives us her bounty of things. I've heard stories of forest dwellers who could go for a leisurely walk in the woods and find, free for the taking, everything to meet their basic needs, plus a whole lot more, e.g. firewood and medicinal plants, galore.
If Nature can, and actually does volunteer everything she has to offer, then why can't people do the same? We both know the answer to that question... and they are called busy-bodies aka meddlers, just a bunch of selfish people who want everything for themselves.
I do my best to just give, and ask for nothing in return. and I do so voluntarily, which is what, and correct me if I'm wrong, socialism is all about.