How a social anarchist economy would function

Well in social anarchism, you would own (earn according to) your own contribution, and all personal possessions would be respected based on personal usage and ocupancy, because there is an actual reason to respect it simple for the fact that it is both useful for that person, and earned through their contributions. It isn't arbitrary, nobody has to use someones personal possessions on a large scale to produce goods, so therefore it also doesn't restrict or oppress anyone. So If the only legitimate non-arbitrary and non-oppressive form of property is based on personal-usage and occupancy (not necessarily immediate use, but common non-abandoned use), then nobody would be able to privately control the means of production as a rational and ethical conclusion. Houses that are abandoned would mean that the person that left it wouldn't retain ownership over it. Houses wouldn't be bought, sold or rented since people own houses based predominately on occupancy. No force would be needed for these kind of protections, as people would never own any form of property that isn't in their collection of personal possessions, that they cannot use, or that counts as large scale means of production that people need to use to produce goods with.

 People would freely use the means of production - such as the factories and workplaces. workers that use them would democratically control them (thus forming a cooperative) and cooperate with other cooperatives to maximize production. People would earn according to contribution - which the workers would also generally judge which contributions are greater than others.

goods could potentially be distributed through a local communal based distribution system where goods are stored within local warehouses. Some warehouses would be designated for people that don't really contribute all that much - predominately for basic necessities, while other warehouses would be for the productive members of society, because produced luxury goods are just too scarce for everyone that is non-productive to have access to -unless of course you are old or disabled, then there is a reason for an exception there.

any task that is useful, anything at all would count as a contribution, even if for example it was taking care of your own children. Since people earn according to contribution (and also based on basic need), then schools, hospitals and other vital social services would be free for anyone to use them, since the people providing the service would earn according to how big their contribution is and how productive they are. So people would always get what they need, and workers would always earn according to useful contributions. Also, when new houses need to be constructed, they would be constructed as the population grows, and people would do it because this would count as a contribution to the community and also earn according to this contribution - plus the fact that it helps their community. It wouldn't cost the new members that occupy the house anything, the workers that built the house or whatever type of residential place it is already earn according to their contribution. This makes basically any type of service free, since people that contribute their labor or intellect earn produced goods according to their contribution.

Innovations would also be greatly rewarded by the community, and since the means of production are open for any group of workers to create an innovation, if they decide to build it, then the deed will be done without restrictions by anyone - most importantly they would have the means to do it with no restrictions. Automation of the production of material goods within the community (especially sooner rather than later) would give the community an incredibly luxurious life style, not only freeing up much labor, but allowing people to do other task, such as science or delve into the arts.