In a full-fledged anarcho-syndicalist society, the governing structures of society are democractically elected workers councils. For example, each workplace may elect an individual (or individuals) to represent them at a workers council at the city level. Then, at a higher level, the members of that workers council would elect an individual or individuals to represent them at the county or municipal level. At each level, decisions are made by consensus, or at the very least by majority vote. So, at the bare minimum, this structure has the same flaws as any other form or representative democracy: elected officials don't automatically become selfless angels by virtue of being elected. They act, as all people do, in their own perceived self-interest. People also act in their own self-interest in a market system, but the incentives in markets actually make that a useful behavior, unlike in elected offices. Secondly, without a price system (which you wouldn't have because you want to abolish currency) the only way to even approximate how much of a good or service is necessary is to ask every single individual how much of something they expect they'll use in the future. Michael Albert advocates something like this in his system called "Participatory Economics". It is not popular among economically literate people, left wing or right wing, and for good reason. That is both an extremely inefficient use of time, and a very poor way of actually finding out what people need, since their actual needs are likely to vary widely from their own expectations. Shortages of some goods and overproduction of others are almost totally inevitable. On top of that, you're also likely to end up with substantially less innovation. Even if it's assumed that inventors will still be just as interested in inventing, even without a profit motive, you won't have venture capital available to provide funding for actually doing the research and development necessary to bring ideas to fruition. At best, inventors might take their ideas in front of some kind of council to try to get their research funded, but the politics involved in that alone should be enough to give any inventor nightmares. Even setting all of that aside, this anarcho-syndicalist society would still need to solve the problem of how to motivate people to unpleasant but necessary work. For example, why would anyone ever want to be a janitor in such a society when they could be a painter, instead? If your answer is "Because they'll care for the needs of the community", I'll simply say that history disagrees with you completely. And what happens to the people that don't want to be part of a workers council? What if they want to be left to do work on their own? In a capitalist society, that's no problem. As long as they provide a good or service others want, they're free to live as they choose. In this theoretical anarcho-syndicalist society, working outside of syndicates might very well be banned, and violators punished or killed (as was the case in "anarchist" Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War) supposedly in order to stop the "re-emergence of capitalism". So, in short, anarcho-syndicalism sounds great on paper, but is completely economically infeasible and in practice becomes far more oppressive than the society it aims to replace.