Black markets - how to eradicate them?

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[cyu]

If the producers actually have control over the means of production (as opposed to a tiny minority of wealthy capitalists), does it really matter?

Well, in some ways, it does. What if some producers were still exceedingly rich compared to others - even though they work for a living and don't live off the backs of their employees? If that happens, then from If they do not give you work or bread, then take bread (http://everything2.com/title/If+they+do+not+give+you+work+or+bread%252C+then+ta ke+bread):

"Ask for work. If they do not give you work, ask for bread. If they do not give you work or bread, then take bread."

Part of a speech by Emma Goldman when she was invited to a strike at Union Square, New York. Her speech quoted this declaration from Cardinal Henry Edward Manning:

"Necessity knows no law, and the starving man has a natural right to a share of his neighbor's bread."

The laws of man are much easier to break than the laws of survival. If your society isn't providing enough legal ways to make a decent living, then more and more people will resort to illegal ways.

This isn't to say I'm encouraging everyone to take bread or engage in armed robbery on the high seas, because while I think it's justified for those who need to do it to survive, I don't believe (for obvious reasons) that it's a good economic strategy.

I would instead encourage the taking of the actual means of production (land, raw materials, equipment, etc) - like what the MST of Brazil did or what the rest of the Latin American recovered factory movements are doing.

[bailey_187]

Black markets arise when there is a demand for something that can not be fulfilled through proper channels e.g. legally sold in capitalism or through socialist distribution in socialism.

While the socialist countries are unable to fulfill demands for certain goods adequetly, there will be social parasites who will try to fill this. Until demand for certain goods are able to be fulfilled adaquetly through Socialism, all must be done to supress black marketeers.

I think, anyway.

[Nolan]

I agree. The black marketeers form one of the biggest threats to socialism in a post-revolutionary society.

As we develop the means to better produce consumer goods at a high quality, the black market (for otherwise legal things) will disappear with time. The USSR could have achieved this had it been given the opportunity.

[sarmchain]

(with the excepction of human trafficking) what could possably be sold on a black market that should not by right be legal
drugs?guns?human organs? all of these should be available though legal means , and the last one should always be free

[cyu]

Some of it may be still controlled by rogue capitalist elements in a post-revolutionary society.

What do you mean by "rogue capitalist elements"? Do you mean someone who claims "property rights" over the means of production, doesn't actually use it, but then uses that claim to force his employees to pay him? The leftist solution to that is to obviously defend the employees when they assume democratic control of the company - arming the employees if necessary.

If you just mean someone who sells stuff he makes - I don't see that person as a capitalist at all. I just see him as a person who sells stuff he makes. He's certainly not "extracting surplus value out of himself" is he?

Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, it would still be a problem even if these "non-capitalists" get much richer than everyone else, because economic power translates into potential domination and oppression of his neighbors. Thus I would encourage anyone who is not able to live a decent life due to economic hardship to simply assume control of at least parts of the means of production being used by those who already have more than enough.

Excerpt from Demand is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money (http://everything2.com/title/Demand+is+not+measured+in+units+of+people%252C+it+ is+measured+in+units+of+money):

If wealth is concentrated in stocks, then employees should assume democratic control over their companies, thus rendering stocks worthless.

If wealth is concentrated in the hoarding of commodities, then people who will actually use those commodities should just take them from the storage areas where they are just being held for speculation.

If wealth is concentrated in paper money or gold, then people should just stop accepting that paper money or gold as legal tender, and start using something else as legal tender.

All these acts are non-violent. However, you may be attacked while carrying out these activities, in which case fighting back would only be self-defense.

[ckaihatsu]

The market mechanism, in *any* form, indicates that conditions of *scarcity* (for unmet human needs and desires) exist somewhere. If human need can be supplied more easily than through a market mechanism then that's what will happen, since the market form requires a certain amount of political *overhead* and social cohesion / understandings / agreements -- the capitalist state, in short.

Those who can fetch water themselves instead of paying for it, will, as those who can grow vegetables for themselves will instead of buying them, neighbors may trade off favors of light service labor, etc.

So markets, being more complex, require a certain *degree* of collectivism (contrary to widespread propaganda), and that entails politics and decisions in common around issues of ownership, productivity, surplus, pricing, economic growth, monetary supply, enforcement, and so on.

Socialism allows us to *cut out* all of this overhead, including the market-exchange-based middleman, thereby shortening the supply chain from the producers (on worker-collectivized means of mass production) *directly* to the consumers, through open-access distribution (of a readily produced *surplus* of material goods) according to unmet human needs and wants. Ideally and realistically the administration for all of this would be centralized and lightweight, since all that would be required would be an ongoing *survey* of unmet need in the population in order to spur production by liberated labor.

If *black* market conditions were to exist alongside a mostly revolutionary society it would indicate a *lack* of adequate distribution channels of goods (and possibly services) to where they're needed. It would inherently be a *political* issue for the workers' collectives, just as it is today *without* the benefit of workers' collectives, since we know how destructive, overbearing, and wasteful the (imperialist) market system is for the same.

The history of colonialism through today shows us that the dominant power is *materially* able to dump vast amounts of commodities down onto Third World areas, supplanting their own economies and efforts at self-sufficiency. With the same *material* capabilities a worker-run production and distribution process could make the same *amounts* of stuff *available* to the people of the world *without* being domineering, overbearing, or displacing local efforts. It would be like *steroids* instead of *cocaine*, if you'll excuse the metaphor.


Chris



--
--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/
tinypic.com/ckaihatsu

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Coming soon through a local area network near you --

[MarxSchmarx]

The market mechanism, in *any* form, indicates that conditions of *scarcity* (for unmet human needs and desires) exist somewhere. If human need can be supplied more easily than through a market mechanism then that's what will happen, since the market form requires a certain amount of political *overhead* and social cohesion / understandings / agreements -- the capitalist state, in short.

Those who can fetch water themselves instead of paying for it, will, as those who can grow vegetables for themselves will instead of buying them, neighbors may trade off favors of light service labor, etc.

So markets, being more complex, require a certain *degree* of collectivism (contrary to widespread propaganda), and that entails politics and decisions in common around issues of ownership, productivity, surplus, pricing, economic growth, monetary supply, enforcement, and so on.

Socialism allows us to *cut out* all of this overhead, including the market-exchange-based middleman, thereby shortening the supply chain from the producers (on worker-collectivized means of mass production) *directly* to the consumers, through open-access distribution (of a readily produced *surplus* of material goods) according to unmet human needs and wants. Ideally and realistically the administration for all of this would be centralized and lightweight, since all that would be required would be an ongoing *survey* of unmet need in the population in order to spur production by liberated labor.

If *black* market conditions were to exist alongside a mostly revolutionary society it would indicate a *lack* of adequate distribution channels of goods (and possibly services) to where they're needed. It would inherently be a *political* issue for the workers' collectives, just as it is today *without* the benefit of workers' collectives, since we know how destructive, overbearing, and wasteful the (imperialist) market system is for the same.

The history of colonialism through today shows us that the dominant power is *materially* able to dump vast amounts of commodities down onto Third World areas, supplanting their own economies and efforts at self-sufficiency. With the same *material* capabilities a worker-run production and distribution process could make the same *amounts* of stuff *available* to the people of the world *without* being domineering, overbearing, or displacing local efforts. It would be like *steroids* instead of *cocaine*, if you'll excuse the metaphor.


It strikes me that the "black market" is an operational definition that is in the eye of the beholder. If a farmer wants to come to city to sell their produce directly to passerbys instead of going through the collective, arguably this is a "black market" in many current societies, but also is from the producer straight to the consumer. Frankly whether the individual farmer does somethinglike this, or the agricultural cooperative does it, seems inmaterial as far as provision of agricultural goods in a non-agricultural setting are concerned.

Indeed, I posit that all a "black market" really means is people exchanging goods and services without the expressed permission of whoever happens to rule over them. Under socialism, producers can interact directly with consumers as they see necessarily fit, so that any transaction between producer and consumer cannot fit the "black market" definition. Under communism there would be no rulers or ruled, and hence no black market.

[ckaihatsu]

It strikes me that the "black market" is an operational definition that is in the eye of the beholder. If a farmer wants to come to city to sell their produce directly to passerbys instead of going through the collective, arguably this is a "black market" in many current societies, but also is from the producer straight to the consumer. Frankly whether the individual farmer does somethinglike this, or the agricultural cooperative does it, seems inmaterial as far as provision of agricultural goods in a non-agricultural setting are concerned.


Yes and no. Your point is well-taken, but the wrinkle is that there has to be *some* method of accounting for value, even if that method is strictly *political* and *non*-quantitative, like communism. (I advocate a system of hazard/difficulty-weighted labor-hour credits, btw. See my profile's visitor's page.)

Our revolutionary leftist political stance is that capitalism itself contains both "regular" and "black" markets. Since we don't support the bourgeoisie we likewise *don't* support its arbitrary and privileged definitions over what is "normal" and what is "illicit" -- it's all still the same economic system whether it's business out in the open or more hidden away.

Capitalism is dominated by an established legacy of certain prominent business fortunes -- the bourgeoisie, in short. How certain businesses, business families, and personalities have come to rise to the heights of "respectable" prominence and publicity is well beyond me, especially since I don't take any interest in historical bourgeois societal dynamics.

Whatever is *not* "respectable", however, falls out of favor of the bourgeois societal establishment and is even criminalized, turning it into the "black market". Nonetheless human needs and wants continue, and so black markets feature severely inflated prices as a result of the artificially increased risk associated with its trade and legal entanglements.





Indeed, I posit that all a "black market" really means is people exchanging goods and services without the expressed permission of whoever happens to rule over them. Under socialism, producers can interact directly with consumers as they see necessarily fit, so that any transaction between producer and consumer cannot fit the "black market" definition. Under communism there would be no rulers or ruled, and hence no black market.


Under socialism people can do whatever the hell they want in terms of exchanging materials and services and such. The only exception to this would be where the collective, organized interest would take precedence over smaller-scale activities, as in fighting off the bourgeoisie, tending to emergency conditions in the wake of natural disasters, large-scale infrastructure building projects, and the like.

Under communism there could be no black markets because there would be no *markets*. Once current (and future) technological productivity is fully harnessed by those actually working at it, the products thereof could simply be *distributed* -- not commodified or traded -- directly to consumers, as you've mentioned. And given that we all just happened to have been born and grew up on this planet there really should be no discussions over who "owns" what portion of the natural world -- either there's a legitimate humanistic reason for utilizing some part of nature, with the politically conscious agreement of workers who have to do the work to transform it into something useful, or there isn't.

[cyu]

How certain businesses, business families, and personalities have come to rise to the heights of "respectable" prominence and publicity is well beyond me

Ownership of the mass media and other means of communication... but you knew that :D


the wrinkle is that there has to be *some* method of accounting for value, even if that method is strictly *political* and *non*-quantitative, like communism... Under communism there could be no black markets because there would be no *markets*.

Yes, ultimately that's where I'd like to be, but in getting there or even after we've gotten there, there would still be instances where there would be isolated incidents of people who want to engage in "black market"-like behavior. However, instead of putting a lot of effort into trying to punish them, I would instead focus on changing the aspects of society that would even drive people to such behavior, until the need or desire for such behavior basically disappears.

Excerpts from equal pay for unequal work (http://everything2.com/title/equal%20pay%20for%20unequal%20work):

In today's system, you convince people to work by offering them money. You convince them to want money by advertising goods they can buy. Without product advertising, would people still want those goods (or money) as much? What then is the purpose of it all? To create a "desire" that wouldn't have existed otherwise, so you can fill that desire – it seems to me to just be a system of creating unnecessary work. Now before you make the argument that advertising isn't all that effective in getting people to buy what they don't want, consider this: why spend so much effort on advertising? It supports all of network television – million dollar salaries for the cast of Friends. Companies wouldn't spend so much if it didn't work. If advertising is just informative, then why spend all that money on slick ads? Why not just a simple, boring blurb about your product? The answer, of course, is that "boring" doesn't sell.

So let's turn this around. Instead of trying to convince people to want things they don't want, instead convince them to want to do things that actually need doing.

As long as the advertising is controlled democratically, then the electorate already knows how important these jobs are. Thus, they already have the motivation to get these things done.

I would imagine different people would give their support to many different organizations. Each of these organizations would be supporting advertising for different activities. The more people supporting one organization, the more advertising you'd see for the jobs supported by that organization.

If you're "lazy" and don't feel like doing anything, nobody forces you to work. You are free to stay at home and watch TV or surf the internet all day. However, instead of being constantly bombarded with ads trying to get you to want more stuff, you are instead bombarded with ads trying to get you to want to go out and do stuff that society thinks needs doing.

As long as people see value in doing something, they are free to support advertising for that kind of activity. Sports, for example, are good for people's health, and, in cases like swimming, can save lives. However, if some other activity could not only provide exercise, but also help out other people at the same time (for example, building a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path), then I could easily see more people gravitating toward promoting that other activity.

[ckaihatsu]

Ownership of the mass media and other means of communication... but you knew that :D


= )


Yeah, that's a *fair*, *safe* general thing to say, but it doesn't get into the complexities of why *one* thing is deemed illegal versus another -- why was alcohol illegal during the time of the U.S.'s Prohibition, while marijuana wasn't? Or, before then, cocaine, opium, etc. -- ? Or, today, why is tobacco *legal* when it causes millions of deaths? Or individual car-driving? Or alcohol?

I don't mean to dwell on this topic because it's *very* yawn-inducing, but I hope my point is well-taken -- there's a certain randomness or arbitrariness about bourgeois rule and its institutions. "Respectability" is as shifting as human nature itself.








Okay, so this would be a public-services-sided driver of the collectivized economy, instead of a privatized, profit-driven, consumer-sided one.

*If* there was a truly democratic economic system run by workers then I suppose this could very well be a method employed to project a public face from the collective decisions, or political culture, rendered by the post-capitalist public policy administration.

*But* -- if the entire political culture was truly participatory / emancipatory, there *wouldn't be* such a stark differentiation between the roles of producer and consumer as there is today. I'd imagine that the inputs and receipts of the broad, liberated culture would be far more fluid, to the point where one would probably be primarily consuming those products that one had a hand in. Wouldn't one rather spend time with one's own "children" than with others?

Publicity could very well be eliminated altogether, as the 'real news' becomes the norm, akin to trade periodicals and notices -- the artificial commercialized consumer-oriented "mass culture" would probably cease to exist since *no one* would be *primarily* a consumer.

[Devrim]

Black markets have historically been the bane of socialist societies. What are the best ways to eradicate them from a future socialist society? Should we out compete them or just persecute them?

I think that the key to the question of black markets is in creating a system where they can't survive. A socialist revolution must look to the immediate improvement of working class living conditions, and the suppression of exchange.

Devrim

[cyu]

why was alcohol illegal during the time of the U.S.'s Prohibition, while marijuana wasn't?

...whims of those who have the resources to start these campaigns. Of course, those who do have the resources to start these campaigns would probably not start a campaign to say that they don't deserve the wealth or power they wield to the detriment of everyone else (at least the few who do wouldn't be able to do it for long without being shot down by the rest of the capitalist class).

Media power can be used in good ways, in bad ways, or in irrelevant ways. There's certainly a lot of irrelevant stuff out there, along with the oppressive stuff as well.


the artificial commercialized consumer-oriented "mass culture" would probably cease to exist since *no one* would be *primarily* a consumer.

Yes, one of the causes is the "right" to exclude others from the means of production. As noted at http://everything2.com/title/unlimited%20wants%20and%20limited%20resources

One of the problems is that once capitalism had set property ownership in stone, then other people are forced to produce more and more useless things in order to make a living.

For example, say some agribusiness owns vast amounts of farmland and is already producing more than enough food for everybody. Maybe there isn't enough farmland left for anybody else to use, or maybe the agribusiness can simply outcompete any other small-scale farmer trying to enter the market. What's left?

Well, there is no other recourse than to find a non-farming related occupation. Maybe it's entering a factory producing plastic toys for people's dashboards. However, as you can see, this job is really pretty useless - nobody really needs plastic toys on their dashboards. So how is the entire sector of useless industries sustained? Advertising. The goal is to convince the people in the agribusiness to trade you their stuff for your plastic toys.

It's not even like people have an intrinsic need to advertise products - they are only forced to do so because if they don't, their company may go bankrupt and they'll be forced into economic hardship - which is only a problem in capitalist society.

[whore]

Indeed, I posit that all a "black market" really means is people exchanging goods and services without the expressed permission of whoever happens to rule over them. Under socialism, producers can interact directly with consumers as they see necessarily fit, so that any transaction between producer and consumer cannot fit the "black market" definition. Under communism there would be no rulers or ruled, and hence no black market.
where there are no taxes, no tarifs, no quotas, no duties, etc, where there are no restrictions on goods or services, where there are no laws or rules, where there is no overreaching authority telling people what they can and cannot do, there can be no black market.

in a free communist society, there would be no black market.

but, would there be no market?

any situation where a producer produces something, and delivers (perhaps for exchange for something else) to the consumer, is a potential market situation. but unless exchange is outlawed (or specific types), there can be no black market.

in a truly free society, there is always the potential for exchange. even if, in a communist society, there is no need or reason for it.

I think that the key to the question of black markets is in creating a system where they can't survive. A socialist revolution must look to the immediate improvement of working class living conditions, and the suppression of exchange.

Devrim
how would you go about suppressing exchange? you would create the conditions of a black market, by the very attempts to stamp it out!

if exchange is permitted, no black market can occur. if you attempt to outlaw (using, presumably, force and the threat of force) the exchange of freely produced items (where no force or threat of force, or exploitation was used), then i would suggest that you aren't for workers rights to that extent.

what are we, as socialists, fighting against? exploitation. what are we fighting for? the right of the worker to their own labor and what they produce.




(in my arguments above i havent considered black markets in, for example, sex slaves or situations where other human rights abuses occur. such things would be fought by any sane society. a persons freedom is restricted by other persons freedom.)

[Devrim]

in a free communist society, there would be no black market.

but, would there be no market?

No, one of the essences of communism is the suppression of the law of value.


any situation where a producer produces something, and delivers (perhaps for exchange for something else) to the consumer, is a potential market situation. but unless exchange is outlawed (or specific types), there can be no black market.

Yes, the working class will need to suppress exchange and money. Without that there can't be an end to exploitation.


how would you go about suppressing exchange? you would create the conditions of a black market, by the very attempts to stamp it out!

With armed workers' militias, but fundamentally by an assault of the foundations of the capitalist economy, the abolition of money.


if exchange is permitted, no black market can occur. if you attempt to outlaw (using, presumably, force and the threat of force) the exchange of freely produced items (where no force or threat of force, or exploitation was used), then i would suggest that you aren't for workers rights to that extent.

No, I am not for 'workers' rights'. I am for workers' power.


what are we, as socialists, fighting against? exploitation. what are we fighting for? the right of the worker to their own labor and what they produce.

No, for a world human community, not a society where people own what they individually produce.

Devrim

[cyu]

the working class will need to suppress exchange and money. Without that there can't be an end to exploitation


I'm no big fan of a culture in which exchange is expected before anyone is ever motivated to do anything, however, I think you could easily prevent exploitation (by helping everyone get access to the means of production) without preventing exchange.

As long as exploitation is prevented, I'd say whether exchange happens or not becomes a much more minor issue - it's not like we'll send police over to your home and arrest you if you say to your spouse, "I'll cook you your favorite dinner if you go with me to the movies later."

This isn't to say that I think that would be the best way to handle a relationship between partners. I think relationship psychologists would be able to suggest much better ways for each partner to get what they want in the scenario above. However, the fact that they resorted to exchange isn't an issue of legal vs illegal or moral vs immoral at that point - more an issue of how both of them can better deal with the situation and both end up happier as a result.

[ckaihatsu]

the working class will need to suppress exchange and money. Without that there can't be an end to exploitation.





I'm no big fan of a culture in which exchange is expected before anyone is ever motivated to do anything, however, I think you could easily prevent exploitation (by helping everyone get access to the means of production) without preventing exchange.


Considering that exploitation is the *what* (human relations), and exchange is the *how* (process), we shouldn't get *too* hung up on exactly what *process* of goods distribution prevails for a non-exploitative society. It's possible to imagine that a more-enlightened society could very well use *any* mechanism for their economics and it would be non-exploitative because the *people themselves* are non-exploitative.

However, it's the *process* that gets turned into the ruling ideology -- that "free markets" are God's greatest invention and so everyone is blessed and just don't bother to worry about anything that happened to people before last week.

So if exchange doesn't *automatically* equal enlightened motivation *or*, on the flipside, exploitation, we would need a wider scope of information about the society that we're considering, beyond just process.





As long as exploitation is prevented, I'd say whether exchange happens or not becomes a much more minor issue - it's not like we'll send police over to your home and arrest you if you say to your spouse, "I'll cook you your favorite dinner if you go with me to the movies later."




This isn't to say that I think that would be the best way to handle a relationship between partners. I think relationship psychologists would be able to suggest much better ways for each partner to get what they want in the scenario above. However, the fact that they resorted to exchange isn't an issue of legal vs illegal or moral vs immoral at that point - more an issue of how both of them can better deal with the situation and both end up happier as a result.


Yeah, this is a good point in that private matters will continue to be private matters -- it's inappropriate (and usually leads to inaccurate conclusions) for larger forces to peek in and try to have a hand in personal matters. (The Tiger Woods thing comes to mind here.) Society, including a state, if any, should seek to *empower* the individual so that more life options exist, so that no one gets *stuck* in any coercive situation, including economic ones.





No, one of the essences of communism is the suppression of the law of value.




Yes, the working class will need to suppress exchange and money. Without that there can't be an end to exploitation.




With armed workers' militias, but fundamentally by an assault of the foundations of the capitalist economy, the abolition of money.


The reason I am politically congruent with Devrim here is because we've *already done* the small-scale shit -- humanity has *extensive*, *monotonous* experience with the family-farm or home-based-piecework method of production.

As revolutionary leftists we should *know* that exchange is *not* a neutral-value process. Rather, it is the latest scheme used by the ruling class to extract surplus value from those who work. In past ages the exploited were called 'slaves' or 'serfs' and today they're called 'workers' -- the fact that people sacrifice their lives to work hasn't changed. Only the economic extraction *method* has changed, to that of "market exchange".

Part of the intentionality of bringing communism around *has* to include *transcending* these past exploitation-enabling *methods*, like chattel slavery or market exchange. Currency is to the capitalist system what the bible is to religion.

Many anarchists, unfortunately, seem to conceptualize markets as some kind of local neighborhood swap meet, when in fact markets are about *stock markets* and *international currency flows*. Sure, as communists we would have about *zero* concern over what a locality does with their swap meet -- what we're focused on is the basis of the *entire economic system*, money and material-value exchange.

[Devrim]

As long as exploitation is prevented, I'd say whether exchange happens or not becomes a much more minor issue - it's not like we'll send police over to your home and arrest you if you say to your spouse, "I'll cook you your favorite dinner if you go with me to the movies later."

This isn't exchange.

Devrim

[whore]

it certainly is. person a gives something to person b, in exchange for something else.

i give you a shirt i made, and you give me a couple of loaves of bread you made. that's exchange. and it in no way threatens the fabric of reality, or of society. (so long as it is all fair an equatable and not exploitaive etc)

[ckaihatsu]

As long as exploitation is prevented, I'd say whether exchange happens or not becomes a much more minor issue - it's not like we'll send police over to your home and arrest you if you say to your spouse, "I'll cook you your favorite dinner if you go with me to the movies later."


This is also borderline disingenuous -- one *could* understandably interpret this illustration as an invoking of a Stalinist-police-state type of violation of the home to use in the capacity of a scare tactic -- who, exactly, is the "we" here? It really smacks of a mischaracterization of *politics* entirely in order to make *economic* exchange look benign by comparison.

[cyu]

Considering that exploitation is the *what* (human relations), and exchange is the *how* (process)


Yes, the problem is exploitation (or at least one of the big problems is exploitation), but I think you're pointing your finger at the wrong thing - or rather, not the primary culprit. Exchange / trade may play a role, but I'd say the much bigger problem is that capitalists claim they have the "right" to exclude others from the means of production.

As you can see, excluding others from the means of production does not involve exchange at all. However, it can lead to great poverty and suffering. And in order for those who don't "legally" own much means of production to avoid poverty and suffering, they can either "exchange" their labor for the "right" to use the means of production claimed by the capitalist, or they can refuse to grant the capitalist the "right" of exclusion, and just go use the means of production, regardless of his whining.

In this scenario, I see the act of exchange as merely a symptom of a much larger problem - that of the "right" to exclude - rather than the source of the problem itself.

[Devrim]

it certainly is. person a gives something to person b, in exchange for something else.

i give you a shirt i made, and you give me a couple of loaves of bread you made. that's exchange. and it in no way threatens the fabric of reality, or of society. (so long as it is all fair an equatable and not exploitaive etc)

That certainly would be exchange. There are two products changing hands. However, it is only exchange if me giving you the bread depends upon you giving me the shirt. If they are both gifts not dependent on the other, no exchange is taking place.


it's not like we'll send police over to your home and arrest you if you say to your spouse, "I'll cook you your favorite dinner if you go with me to the movies later."

This is not exchange though unless you consider a wife accompanying her husband to the movies as a service being rendered, and a product of labour. In my opinion it is pretty much the view of extreme capitalist ideolouges who see all human relations as being dominated by comodities.

Devrim

[ckaihatsu]

it certainly is. person a gives something to person b, in exchange for something else.

i give you a shirt i made, and you give me a couple of loaves of bread you made. that's exchange. and it in no way threatens the fabric of reality, or of society. (so long as it is all fair an equatable and not exploitaive etc)





That certainly would be exchange. There are two products changing hands. However, it is only exchange if me giving you the bread depends upon you giving me the shirt. If they are both gifts not dependent on the other, no exchange is taking place.


Couple points here:

- Exchange doesn't happen in a vacuum. While we can discuss these context-free, *hypothetical* scenarios, they don't really have much practical value, not even in the way of illustration / instruction. In reality we'd have to be discussing what people's *alternatives* are (could they easily enter into a larger economic system by selling their labor), what is the job market like, what are the prevailing wages and benefits, where would the shirtmaker get the raw materials from (and at what labor cost), where would the breadmaker get raw materials from (and at what labor cost), what are the transaction costs, and so on....

- And, even with all of these larger *economic* factors being taken into consideration, we still haven't addressed *political*, or power-based dynamics at play. How badly does one party need the shirt, and how badly might the breadmaker need the bread *for themselves*? (Etc.)





it's not like we'll send police over to your home and arrest you if you say to your spouse, "I'll cook you your favorite dinner if you go with me to the movies later."





This is not exchange though unless you consider a wife accompanying her husband to the movies as a service being rendered, and a product of labour. In my opinion it is pretty much the view of extreme capitalist ideolouges who see all human relations as being dominated by comodities.


We might put this in terms of if one or the other transfer could have very well happened *regardless* of its counterpart transfer. For very close-knit people -- couples or communities -- the gift economy is easier and more fluid than to bother commodifying anything. Once in the "inner circle" things just happen because there's enough stability, activity, and economic support of it to keep things flowing. Would the husband have taken the wife to the movies *anyway*, without any material reciprocity? Most likely so. Would the wife have cooked the husband his favorite dinner even if he had to abruptly cancel the evening at the movies for some legitimate reason? Probably so, too.

*Trade* exchanges are *business* since the relationship between parties is *determined* by the exchanges, not the other way around, as for *personal* relationships.

[MarxSchmarx]

where there are no taxes, no tarifs, no quotas, no duties, etc, where there are no restrictions on goods or services, where there are no laws or rules, where there is no overreaching authority telling people what they can and cannot do, there can be no black market.

in a free communist society, there would be no black market.

but, would there be no market?

touché - as without at least some sort of restrictions (e.g., material limits to productive capacities) and hence scarcity, there can be no market.