Well, I think that’s a loaded question (albeit, unintentionally).

First, I only see two “anti-capitalist” situtations where networking would be irrelevant: abundance, and centralized planning where a job is guaranteed to everyone and every job is essentially identical. The first I think is unlikely to occur (at least in the near future), and the second I think is undesirable.

I know that anagory is opposition to market-type transactions (so I guess it’s more of a vision of an abundance economy, or at least extending an “household mentality” to larger economic units). Anyway, I don’t see either of those as being incredibly likely, so the “non-capitalist” economy that I focus on is one where individuals and small groups have control over all the materials that they need to make a living — housing, land, and tools. In this situation, the employer/employee power relationship doesn’t exist, and so neither does the conventional idea of a “job” being something that you have or don’t have (or something that could be abundant). All we would have is time and tools and the need to decide how to use our time and our tools most effectively to satisfy our desires. “Jobs” would be small, specific tasks. I see no reason that it would be easy to find the optimal jobs — it would still require a lot of planning and multi-person coordination. Maybe things would be “easy” in the sense that a typical worker could take care of their needs with only 20 hours of work each week… but someone could still want to hunt for the more rewarding jobs that allow him to achieve the same goals by working only 10 hours a week.