How will communism deal with used goods?

[argeiphontes]

I'm watching an episode of American Pickers and wondering what would happen to the "secondary market" under communism, since there are no markets. It would be wasteful to not have a way to recycle items that weren't wanted anymore. What about used, out-of-print, and antiquarian books; classic cars, vintage LPs, used clothing and appliances, comic books, collectible artifacts, architectural salvage, communist kitsch, etc. Sometimes these things are a substitute for, or excuse, for people to socialize or reminisce about the past, so they are not purely profit-making activities.

How would this be handled without the ability to buy and sell anything? Just barter?

[A Psychological Symphony]

"Boy, I'm pretty done with this used item."

"Woah, really? I could take it off your hands if you'd like!"

"That would work swell! I'm glad it can find a new use now instead of being thrown away!"

[reb]

There already are such networks up and running under capital where people post things they are either looking for or trying to get off their hands.

[argeiphontes]

"Boy, I'm pretty done with this used item."

"Woah, really? I could take it off your hands if you'd like!"

"That would work swell! I'm glad it can find a new use now instead of being thrown away!"

Sure, people including me do this now, but some things have an economic value. Nobody is going to freely give up some rare things without trading.

Physically going to swap meets all the time is a pain in the ass, so some kind of craigslist would be nice. There would be liquidity problems, too, so a medium of exchange would be nice too. Also, it's possible to make a profit through barter alone. Somebody could quit their job and become a full-time trader.

And not to rehash that thread about crypto-currencies, but the collectibles market seems like a great way for crypto-currencies to arise, by recreating the conditions that currency solves. It wouldn't have to be universal, just a token that can be traded and subdivided for other collectibles. SuperBucks for comic book collectors and Stampies for stamp collectors.

(Not that any of this is a real problem for communism, IMO, since the point is that the general economic system would be dominated by communist relations.)

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I assume there'd be an gumtree-like system where you could post what you've got available to give away and people indicate if they would like it. If you find something you think you might like, you indicate to the person who posted the ad that you'd like it. Etc. In Bristol there used to be an anarchist free shop (not sure if it's still operating as I'm no longer in Bristol) where you could essentially come in and take whatever you wanted and leave behind whatever you didn't as well. People would leave behind books, clothes, cds etc. I don't see why currency in exchange would ever have to come in to it.

[argeiphontes]

I don't see why currency in exchange would ever have to come in to it.

Because otherwise people wanting to trade have to wait for somebody wanting to make exactly the trade they want. It's not possible to abstract the value of anything. It's not necessary but much more convenient.

Maybe any sufficiently large trader would be able to issue their own tokens and become a "market maker" providing liquidity.

[NGNM85]

In short; I think people would recycle, trade, or sell them. I personally don't see how it could be possible to prevent markets from forming. Even if we all had matter replicators, like in Star Trek, I think there would still be markets. For example; antiques, collectibles, and works of art. As long as they exist, people will collect them, and collectors always want the genuine article. I just don't see how it's avoidable. I also don't see how it's possible to do without currency, either.

[Sinister Intents]

Because otherwise people wanting to trade have to wait for somebody wanting to make exactly the trade they want. It's not possible to abstract the value of anything. It's not necessary but much more convenient.

Maybe any sufficiently large trader would be able to issue their own tokens and become a "market maker" providing liquidity.

It'll be free exchange of goods. Say you go to a place and drop something off that you no longer need or want, and you can take something from the place that you need. No money involved, and money will never need to be involved. Why would you want any kind of currency? Currency will have no value or need anymore. Market maker? Liquidity? Marketing is a useless capitalist profession, while I expect advertising in some form under socialism so that people can find things they want. Liquidity only makes sense if you have bills to pay, under socialism you won't have bills to pay, no taxes to pay because money will no longer be needed at all.

[Skyhilist]

If we'd reached full communism, we're likely talking about a society full of pretty environmentally aware people. So given that I don't think most people are going to be like "yo, fuck that thrift place with perfectly good used things, I need more resources spent on making MY stuff!"

Different populaces though will likely decide the amount of different resources that they need. So say, a place needs 10000 new shirts during a year, and it's estimated there will be 3000 perfectly good (but somewhat used) shirts available at thrift shops (not shops really, but you know what I mean), then that place could just have 7000 shirts shipped in that year, because collectively most people wont want to waste resources. I doubt most people would go way out of their way even if they were picky about clothing to get ONLY new shirts somewhere else further away, especially when the lightly used shirts are perfectly fine.

Tbh though, this seems like an unlikely problem due to the fact that you'd have mostly environmentally conscious people if full communism had been achieved. If it was a problem I don't think it'd be a big one, and we could always figure it out when it occurred.

[argeiphontes]

Liquidity only makes sense if you have bills to pay, under socialism you won't have bills to pay, no taxes to pay because money will no longer be needed at all.

Liquidity just means being able to trade when you want. If you want to trade some comic books you have for some you want, you have to wait until somebody wants to make the exact opposite trade unless you have a way of providing liquidity.

It's not just about recycling though. Collectibles aren't recycled. Every collector wants a comprehensive collection, or some specific items, and is not willing to just recycle their items. Without a way to trade, nobody could increase their collection. Nobody is going to give up their First German Edition of das Kapital without something in return.

If anybody wants to recycle any of their first editions this way, please send me a list and I can PM you my address ;)

[A Psychological Symphony]

Sure, people including me do this now, but some things have an economic value. Nobody is going to freely give up some rare things without trading.

Physically going to swap meets all the time is a pain in the ass, so some kind of craigslist would be nice. There would be liquidity problems, too, so a medium of exchange would be nice too. Also, it's possible to make a profit through barter alone. Somebody could quit their job and become a full-time trader.

And not to rehash that thread about crypto-currencies, but the collectibles market seems like a great way for crypto-currencies to arise, by recreating the conditions that currency solves. It wouldn't have to be universal, just a token that can be traded and subdivided for other collectibles. SuperBucks for comic book collectors and Stampies for stamp collectors.

(Not that any of this is a real problem for communism, IMO, since the point is that the general economic system would be dominated by communist relations.)

What economic value will any item have in a society where there is no currency and everything is free? Some items could be rarer than others, but that does not necessarily mean that they hold higher value as value (In a society that does not hold supply and demand market values) is not directly related to rarity.

Craigslist and things like it already exist. You could simply post what you have and no longer want, and also browse what other people have and no longer want.

I feel pretty confident that a communist system will be able to withstand some collectors trading their collectibles.

[Sinister Intents]

Liquidity just means being able to trade when you want. If you want to trade some comic books you have for some you want, you have to wait until somebody wants to make the exact opposite trade unless you have a way of providing liquidity.

Ahhh yeah, forgot this:
Definition of 'Liquidity'



1. The degree to which an asset or security can be bought or sold in the market without affecting the asset's price. Liquidity is characterized by a high level of trading activity. Assets that can be easily bought or sold are known as liquid assets.

2. The ability to convert an asset to cash quickly. Also known as "marketability."

There is no specific liquidity formula; however, liquidity is often calculated by using liquidity ratios.


If anybody wants to recycle any of their first editions this way, please send me a list and I can PM you my address ;)

I will not let you have my first edition! It took forever to get it :(

[Skyhilist]

I don't think that someone would hoard their unneeded shirts just because they couldn't make a profit on them, especially when they already have all the resources that they want. This is full communism we're talking about after all, so post-scarcity has already been achieved.

[Sinister Intents]

I don't think that someone would hoard their unneeded shirts just because they couldn't make a profit on them, especially when they already have all the resources that they want. This is full communism we're talking about after all, so post-scarcity has already been achieved.

Hey man I got a bunch of old shirts lets go to the middle of the city and give them to people who need or want more shirts! Seriously I have a lot of old shirts and there is a place in my town where you can drop them off and they're given to people in need, haven't taken them out yet but I will this summer

[Skyhilist]

You know what a cute idea would be is to fire them off using the tee shirt launchers at sporting events. I mean NO ONE turns down a shirt that just got fired at them through a tee shirt launcher. Just catching one of those shirts feels like an accomplishment.

[argeiphontes]

I feel pretty confident that a communist system will be able to withstand some collectors trading their collectibles.

I didn't think it couldn't.


I don't think that someone would hoard their unneeded shirts just because they couldn't make a profit on them

I agree.


Ahhh yeah, forgot this:
Definition of 'Liquidity'



1. The degree to which an asset or security can be bought or sold in the market without affecting the asset's price. Liquidity is characterized by a high level of trading activity. Assets that can be easily bought or sold are known as liquid assets.

2. The ability to convert an asset to cash quickly. Also known as "marketability."

There is no specific liquidity formula; however, liquidity is often calculated by using liquidity ratios.


Right, so without money or other system of abstract value, you'll have liquidity problems. A large collector/trader could issue their own tokens to mitigate this, though, if there was enough faith in them. Or some kind of a cartel could form.

[argeiphontes]

so post-scarcity has already been achieved.

You can't have post-scarcity in old comic books and classic cars, though. I wasn't talking about mass-produced commodities. But even those can eventually become rare collectibles.

[Sinister Intents]

Right, so without money or other system of abstract value, you'll have liquidity problems. A large collector/trader could issue their own tokens to mitigate this, though, if there was enough faith in them. Or some kind of a cartel could form.

Under full communism money won't be necessary, so this only applies to capitalism really. 'Businesses' under socialism will not work the same, they'll be free associations of workers and volunteers. If we're talking labor credits under communism or labor vouchers this still doesn't really apply, so it only applies to capitalism.

[argeiphontes]

Under full communism money won't be necessary, so this only applies to capitalism really.

Or a black market in collectibles, if an overt one isn't allowed.

[Skyhilist]

You can't have post-scarcity in old comic books and classic cars, though. I wasn't talking about mass-produced commodities. But even those can eventually become rare collectibles.

ok but most things don't fall into the category of "rare collectives". Since human behavior is largely shaped by society's expectations, it seems unlikely that many people would try to create some type of profit based on rare collectives, as it'd likely be shunned socially. Either way, I don't think it's a huge deal if it happens on a very large scale. I mean if I mow my neighbors lawn for a comic book or something, is that really gonna have much of an impact? If it's happening on a large scale, we'll have to proactively fight it of course, perhaps by allowing people a certain number of rare collectives per person so they'd have to prioritize and therefore lower demand of such items. Whatever, it's hard to figure out an exact solution now because we don't know the social context of how something like this might happen in the future, but I personally don't think it'd be a huge problem that we couldn't fix with a little work and a logical populace.

[Sinister Intents]

Or a black market in collectibles, if an overt one isn't allowed.

I really don't think that a black market will arrise, I'm pretty sure that is a capitalistic phenomena sinced its so linked with the 'shady' side of capitalism. Drugs being illegal creates a black market for them because of peoples demanding them, and then people provide a supply to exploit that demand for profit. That won't exist under socialism because will ensure people's demands will be taken care of and a system of accounts can be set up for individual communes, et cetera to receive supplies and items that people want, as well as internal free trade between people. Drugs will probably be freely produced and distributed in the commune, collective, et cetera. Also drug abuse tends to arrise because of the many, many ills capitalism creates. No parasitic markets will exist under socialism.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I think you're injecting unnecessary complexity into something that could be as simple as 'I have these old comics, does anyone want them?'/'I'm looking out for some old comics to round my collection, does anyone have them who doesn't want them?'. There's no need for anything like 'I have some old comics worth easily five kitsch lamps but I'll accept three trade tokens instead' which seems to just arbitrarily be adding exchange value where we know it doesn't need to exist.

[argeiphontes]

If it's happening on a large scale, we'll have to proactively fight it of course

I don't think it would happen on a large scale, most people don't collect anything now. I would expect less commodity fetishism in communism, too. But I don't think it's fair to fight it. It doesn't really harm anybody or take anything necessary away from other people. Most people think this stuff is garbage, which is how it becomes rare in the first place.


I really don't think that a black market will arrise, I'm pretty sure that is a capitalistic phenomena sinced its so linked with the 'shady' side of capitalism. Drugs

I like drugs, but I don't collect them. I use them as consumables ;) I think there might be a black market in collectibles, though, since it's rare stuff and nobody is giving any up without getting something in return.


I think you're injecting unnecessary complexity into something that could be as simple as 'I have these old comics, does anyone want them?'

I take it you don't collect anything :)

[Sinister Intents]

I like drugs, but I don't collect them. I use them as consumables ;) I think there might be a black market in collectibles, though, since it's rare stuff and nobody is giving any up without getting something in return.

Drugs are good, and I consume my fair share of the ones I like. Why would there be a black market in collectibles? This is a daft assumption of what will happen under communism. This rare stuff can and will be reproduced, freely, to those that want it. Plus I don't care about collecting things, I used to when I would hoard things. There is a difference between collecting and hoarding? I don't really see it, no one is gonna think your collection is interesting necessarily, some may find it creepy and disturbing. Things will be produced to those that have the demand, and you yourself can create your own shit with your own two hands freely.

[NGNM85]

I think you're injecting unnecessary complexity into something that could be as simple as 'I have these old comics, does anyone want them?'/'I'm looking out for some old comics to round my collection, does anyone have them who doesn't want them?'. There's no need for anything like 'I have some old comics worth easily five kitsch lamps but I'll accept three trade tokens instead' which seems to just arbitrarily be adding exchange value where we know it doesn't need to exist.

It kind of does, because those kitsch lamps will only appeal to a much more limited range of people, who may not have something you want, for one thing. The utility of currency is that it can be exchanged for anything, well, almost anything. Also, some goods will simply have to be rationed, somehow, either because they are scarce, or difficult to produce, etc., sophisticated electronics, for example. There is no way we could just let anybody grab as many smartphones as they want, like Halloween candy. That's not possible, for a number of reasons. Attaching a cost, in labor credits, or whatever, is just a really effective way of rationing those electronics. People are also more inclined to care for things they might have to replace.

[Skyhilist]

I don't think it would happen on a large scale, most people don't collect anything now. I would expect less commodity fetishism in communism, too. But I don't think it's fair to fight it. It doesn't really harm anybody or take anything necessary away from other people. Most people think this stuff is garbage, which is how it becomes rare in the first place.

I only think it'd be necessary to fight it it were on a large scale, as in, people were making copious amount of profit off of things they'd accumulated. But yeah like you say, people will probably place much less of an emphasis on accumulating possessions, so I don't think this is anything to lose sleep over.

[argeiphontes]

Why would there be a black market in collectibles? This is a daft assumption of what will happen under communism. This rare stuff can and will be reproduced, freely, to those that want it.


No collector wants a reproduction though.



some may find it creepy and disturbing

Especially my collection of Soviet pins & communist kitsch ;)

[Sinister Intents]

No collector wants a reproduction though.



Especially my collection of Soviet pins & communist kitsch ;)

This still doesn't warrant a black market, one will not arise, and people will be fine with reproductions, why be greedy? Greed is a symptom of the problem of capitalism, greed is a normalized behaviour. Yes, I think your collection is creepy.

[argeiphontes]

Yes, I think your collection is creepy.

I actually don't think any of them are Stalin era. But I'd be willing to pay more for those, of course. ;)

[Sinister Intents]

I actually don't think any of them are Stalin era. But I'd be willing to pay more for those, of course. ;)

Still creepy haha. Why would you be willing to benefit a capitalist in socialism? Go get your damn reproduction, it'll be just as good, if not better.

[argeiphontes]

it'll be just as good, if not better.

It won't have history, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance

(A while ago, somebody on the board posted about having a copy of one of Trotsky's books, signed by Trotsky. I might not like Trotsky, but that's pretty cool.)

[Sinister Intents]

It won't have history, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance

Oh well, things can be made to have that aged appearance, like concrete for example. You can get your reproduction and you will enjoy it. Why not give it its own history? An object is an object is an object.

[argeiphontes]

Oh well, things can be made to have that aged appearance, like concrete for example.

I guess you'll have to ask the concrete collectors if they're willing to settle. :grin:

(Real estate moguls? ;) )

[Sinister Intents]

I guess you'll have to ask the concrete collectors if they're willing to settle. :grin:

Huh? Why would you collect slabs of conrete? I will perform the work for free because I enjoy the work, not because I want to capitalize off of it. Do you wish to capitalize in some way?

[argeiphontes]

Huh? Why would you collect slabs of conrete? I will perform the work for free because I enjoy the work, not because I want to capitalize off of it. Do you wish to capitalize in some way?

I was just kidding around because we were talking about collectibles and you mentioned concrete.

No, I just want a legitimate way to expand my collection of old concrete. Some of it was walked on my presidents and other famous people. You can't recreate that. :)

[Sinister Intents]

I was just kidding around because we were talking about collectibles and you mentioned concrete.

No, I just want a legitimate way to expand my collection of old concrete. Some of it was walked on my presidents and other famous people. You can't recreate that. :)

Ahhhh, well then you're gonna have a lot of pissed off people when you go around with a forklift and sledgehammer taking slabs of concrete that has better use than being creepily stored in your warehouse. Presidents suck, its a happy day when bourgeois politicians die! Like when Thatcher died I was happy

[argeiphontes]

Presidents suck

Well, I guess we can end it on that note, then.

[Creative Destruction]

there are ways of trading collectibles without needing money, even under a capitalist system. money isn't necessary to trade collectibles, unless you're commercially selling items or something. otherwise, you could barter, freely negotiate with your labor (how many labor-hours is deemed equal value for the item in question), and what not. i really doubt that, under a communist system, a new form of money would arise, especially since money needs to be generalized to have any actual value (which is part of the issue with BitCoins.) you'd essentially have to set up a very tightly knit, disparate network that trades on those collectible money-notes alone, but i don't see what good that would do, really, since the point in trading money in for a collectible -- a lot of the time -- is to meet needs that you have outside that transaction. not really to go off and purchase another collectible. (i collected bootlegs and vintage records a while back and built my collection, mostly, off of bartering, goodwill gifts and gambling. then i sold my entire collection because my wife and i needed to raise money to move.)

it would be quite a task to formulate a new money-form solely for this specific kind of commerce, especially since your currency really wouldn't be based on anything. you can't build it off the basis of the health of the collectibles market, or a fixed basket of commodities, because collectibles have some really wild and varying values, and a lot of it is really left up to individual opinion. so, there's nothing to peg it to and if you tried, the value of this currency would fluctuate, probably, in really insane ways.

[Ocean Seal]

If its practical to repair them, then they will be repaired, otherwise they will be recycled. In some cases used goods can be redistributed if necessary.

[PhoenixAsh]

These kind of systems are already developing in Holland...and assume they are also developing elsewhere.

We have entire online communities which post their used / unwanted stuff to pick up freely or for trade in some way or another (and yes...right now...sometimes this means money). We even have entire networks which arrange for some kind of "lets fix this for each other" events where people with skills and knowledge help each other to repair things they themselves can't repair for free.

[Slavic]

There is nothing wrong with volunteering hours of labor for rare collectables.

If I have Spiderman comics and I want more rare vintage comics, if I can't barter with personal property with another collector for his rare vintage Spiderman comic, then an exchange of labor could be negotiated.

The free exchange of scarce personal commodities could be accomplished through barter of similar scarce personal commodities or labor.

Also

This still doesn't warrant a black market, one will not arise, and people will be fine with reproductions, why be greedy? Greed is a symptom of the problem of capitalism, greed is a normalized behaviour. Yes, I think your collection is creepy.

Collections of rare commodities are not symptoms of greed, they are an expression of interests. Items of collections are not just in demand for their use-value, but because how the circumstances of how said item came into existence. A first edition Spiderman comic holds more emotional and personal value to a collector then a reprint simply by virtue of how said first edition came into print and not by the content of its pages. Mind you I do no collect anything nor do I even like comics, but I can understand the rational behind a collector's interests and I don't think such things should be denied.

[liberlict]

In short; I think people would recycle, trade, or sell them. I personally don't see how it could be possible to prevent markets from forming. Even if we all had matter replicators, like in Star Trek, I think there would still be markets. For example; antiques, collectibles, and works of art. As long as they exist, people will collect them, and collectors always want the genuine article. I just don't see how it's avoidable. I also don't see how it's possible to do without currency, either.

True dat. It's pointless to abolish currency, because communities just come up with a defacto currency anyway; such as in a penitentiary where cigarettes are typically the unit of accounting.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think when we are focusing on collecting things it might be worthwhile to do more research into the psychology of collecting. I think we would find that collecting ultimately boils down to some form of alienation with life and finding emotional comfort that is lost.

There would be a serious question if creating a society that is more oriented towards human needs and development free from hierarchical structures and pressures would result in the need to collect and poses.

[liberlict]

I think when we are focusing on collecting things it might be worthwhile to do more research into the psychology of collecting. .

I think you are absolutely right.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I personally don't see how it could be possible to prevent markets from forming. Even if we all had matter replicators, like in Star Trek, I think there would still be markets. For example; antiques, collectibles, and works of art. As long as they exist, people will collect them, and collectors always want the genuine article.

People don't all want to collect the same thing, so I think there would be room for private collections. In the event that that there are more collectors than collectibles, why should some people have exclusive access to them merely on the basis of intrinsically worthless tokens?


I just don't see how it's avoidable. I also don't see how it's possible to do without currency, either.

Collective ownership. If there is only a handful of original Porsches left in the world, then they're pieces of history and thus belong in museums and not in private collections.

[Baseball]

People don't all want to collect the same thing, so I think there would be room for private collections. In the event that that there are more collectors than collectibles, why should some people have exclusive access to them merely on the basis of intrinsically worthless tokens?

Why shouldn't they?

That basic problem isn't just going manifest itself on collectables. Its going to be a basic problem of all production, even in the socialist community.
Is everything going to be collectively owned?

[Baseball]

There is nothing wrong with volunteering hours of labor for rare collectables.

If I have Spiderman comics and I want more rare vintage comics, if I can't barter with personal property with another collector for his rare vintage Spiderman comic, then an exchange of labor could be negotiated.

The free exchange of scarce personal commodities could be accomplished through barter of similar scarce personal commodities or labor.

Also


Collections of rare commodities are not symptoms of greed, they are an expression of interests. Items of collections are not just in demand for their use-value, but because how the circumstances of how said item came into existence. A first edition Spiderman comic holds more emotional and personal value to a collector then a reprint simply by virtue of how said first edition came into print and not by the content of its pages. Mind you I do no collect anything nor do I even like comics, but I can understand the rational behind a collector's interests and I don't think such things should be denied.

Why would distribution of "collectables" be organized differently than production in general?

[argeiphontes]

There would be a serious question if creating a society that is more oriented towards human needs and development free from hierarchical structures and pressures would result in the need to collect and poses.

Provided that human relationships were encouraged and allowed to recolonize aspects of life that has been colonized by capitalism, then sure, some of this would vanish. Even so, some aspects of life are always about things, like clothing. I don't think it's right to assume that interest in things is always inauthentic. People were interested in things long before capitalism came on the scene. The important thing to note is that there are both authentic and inauthentic ways to approach things. (Clothing is a great example.)

Also, it's subjective to judge somebody else's desire to collect. If society is free, there should be freedom to collect. It's not like people are going to be medicated or subjected to therapy because they like comic books or old coins. (At least not in any society I would want to live in.)

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I didn't think of this before...good Lord! This means I could go thrifting till I die of exhaustion! Can we start like tomorrowish then?

[Slavic]

Why would distribution of "collectables" be organized differently than production in general?

A collectable is a scarcity item that is not currently being mass produced. Since it is not being produced anymore its distribution must be structured differently than post-scarcity commodities.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

A collectable is a scarcity item that is not currently being mass produced. Since it is not being produced anymore its distribution must be structured differently than post-scarcity commodities.

How? Collectables are really only have subjective value specific to the collector or would be collector. Which is why appraising such items is difficult and is largely dependent on past auction prices of same or similar item. Remove the market, remove the whole thing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why shouldn't they?

Because it's completely arbitrary, for a start. There are also many illegitimate ways of gaining money (theft, embezzlement, fraud, exploitation and so on and on) for another.


That basic problem isn't just going manifest itself on collectables. Its going to be a basic problem of all production, even in the socialist community.

No it isn't, because there will be this thing called "mass production".

[Vanguard1917]

I think when we are focusing on collecting things it might be worthwhile to do more research into the psychology of collecting. I think we would find that collecting ultimately boils down to some form of alienation with life and finding emotional comfort that is lost.

That's a good point. I guess in some ways it also reflects the 'Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!' culture of capitalism that Marx talked about. Technology has already rapidly worn down some of the old prominent types of consumer collecting anyway - CDs being an obvious example (people still 'collect' music files on their ipods and whatnot but they seem less attached to them than they were to music in the older formats). No crystal balls here, but maybe some people will always have a quirky fascination with accumulating odd things. I don't, however, see how that will upset any communist economic dynamic.

[Baseball]

Because it's completely arbitrary, for a start. There are also many illegitimate ways of gaining money (theft, embezzlement, fraud, exploitation and so on and on) for another.


How is the socialist method of distribution less arbitrary and less open to corruption?

[o well this is ok I guess]

Or a black market in collectibles, if an overt one isn't allowed. communism probably won't eliminate black markets. Why should it?
A better question: could a black market seriously threaten the whole fabric of society?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How is the socialist method of distribution less arbitrary and less open to corruption?

Because it's based on needs and because it wouldn't have money.

[Baseball]

Because it's based on needs and because it wouldn't have money.

Which doesn't explain why a decision to satisfy your "need" for a particular collectable, or any other product, is NOT arbitrary.
And corruption doesn't need to be just about money.

[Lowtech]

I agree with NGNM85 that we can't prevent markets from forming insofar that nomatter the economic system, some people would chose to play the board game monopoly for recreation. The issue of economic systems however is that markets are not an axiom of economics, so therefore the artificial scarcity and economic subjugation that comes with a market/profit centric economy constitutes an unnecessary dystopia.

[Lowtech]

Wrong thread.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Collectibles of a great worth (i.e. not in terms of some abstract notion of monetary value, but say according to their demand) could just be deemed 'property' instead of 'possessions' and socialised, so that everybody had free and open access to them, perhaps through some random selection scheme.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Which doesn't explain why a decision to satisfy your "need" for a particular collectable, or any other product, is NOT arbitrary.

People need things like food, shelter, clothing and so on. They don't need a million different bottlecaps or one of the five last original Mercedes cars.


And corruption doesn't need to be just about money.

Of course, but the nature and function of money makes it a great enabler of corruption.

[NGNM85]

People don't all want to collect the same thing, so I think there would be room for private collections. In the event that that there are more collectors than collectibles, why should some people have exclusive access to them merely on the basis of intrinsically worthless tokens?

Collective ownership. If there is only a handful of original Porsches left in the world, then they're pieces of history and thus belong in museums and not in private collections.

That doesn't cut it. How do propose to abolish markets, and currency, and why?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That doesn't cut it. How do propose to abolish markets, and currency, and why?

Markets and currency are propped up by the state acting as the executive arm of capital. When there is no capital and most likely no state either, there is no market in any meaningful sense of the term. Exchange may exist, but it takes more than that to make a market.

As to why, the needs and desires of the greater portion of humanity are poorly served (to say the least!) by such mechanisms, and thus should be abolished.

[Slavic]

How? Collectables are really only have subjective value specific to the collector or would be collector. Which is why appraising such items is difficult and is largely dependent on past auction prices of same or similar item. Remove the market, remove the whole thing.

Since most collectables would only contain a subjective value, I am assuming that they would be deemed personal property, which can be traded for another's personal property. I really don't care how collectors would figure out their collection's "exchange rate" for the basis of trading for another collection. As long as their is no currency that serves as a medium I don't think that such trade would affect a socialist system of production.

[NGNM85]

Markets and currency are propped up by the state acting as the executive arm of capital. When there is no capital and most likely no state either, there is no market in any meaningful sense of the term. Exchange may exist, but it takes more than that to make a market.

As to why, the needs and desires of the greater portion of humanity are poorly served (to say the least!) by such mechanisms, and thus should be abolished.

Capitalism cannot exist without markets, but markets most certainly can exist without capitalism, as they did for thousands of years. While I would agree that essential human needs, like food, shelter, medicine, etc., should not be distributed according to the vicissitudes of an indifferent market, even if the means of production were publicly owned, I see no reason why markets should not exist, at all, particularly under such conditions. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how you hope to accomplish this feat. I don't see how it's possible.

[Illegalitarian]

There will always be "markets" in the sense of a loose collection of goods and services available for consumption and use. That doesn't make them capitalistic.



To answer the OP, well, I imagine it would work kind of like American Pickers. Go to people that have an item you desire and strike a deal of some sort

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Capitalism cannot exist without markets, but markets most certainly can exist without capitalism, as they did for thousands of years. While I would agree that essential human needs, like food, shelter, medicine, etc., should not be distributed according to the vicissitudes of an indifferent market, even if the means of production were publicly owned, I see no reason why markets should not exist, at all, particularly under such conditions. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how you hope to accomplish this feat. I don't see how it's possible.

How would markets operate A) without a widely-acceptable medium of exchange and B) in the presence of non-market-based systems of distribution?

How do you "compete" with universal free access? Especially considering the clumsiness of bartering in the absence of currency?

[NGNM85]

How would markets operate A) without a widely-acceptable medium of exchange and B) in the presence of non-market-based systems of distribution?

Markets are perfectly able to coexist alongside non-market means of distribution.

Markets don't require a universal medium of exhange, currency, in order to exist, it just makes things a hell of a lot easier. This, of course, leads to a more fundamental issue which is whether, or not currency should exist in a socialist society. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion, there.


How do you "compete" with universal free access? Especially considering the clumsiness of bartering in the absence of currency?

Yeah, it's a lot more difficult without a universal medium, which is one of the primary reasons why currency exists.

What you're describing sounds like what is also sometimes referred to as a `gift economy.' I have absolutely no idea how you envision this, and I haven't studied the subject, extensively, but I've never encountered a model of this sort that passes the laugh test. I haven't seen any that are remotely persuasive.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Markets are perfectly able to coexist alongside non-market means of distribution.

Markets don't require a universal medium of exhange, currency, in order to exist, it just makes things a hell of a lot easier. This, of course, leads to a more fundamental issue which is whether, or not currency should exist in a socialist society. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion, there.

Yeah, it's a lot more difficult without a universal medium, which is one of the primary reasons why currency exists.

What you're describing sounds like what is also sometimes referred to as a `gift economy.' I have absolutely no idea how you envision this, and I haven't studied the subject, extensively, but I've never encountered a model of this sort that passes the laugh test. I haven't seen any that are remotely persuasive.

I think a gift economy would work on the smaller scales, e.g. with localised artisan-based production. For wide-scale mass production I think something along the lines of energy accounting (http://www.technocracy.ca/tiki-index.php?page=IB29) would be more practical (link is to a brief explanation; more detailed reading can be found HERE (http://www.scribd.com/doc/70385830/Technocracy-Inc-Beyond-the-Price-System-Economics-and-Politics) and HERE (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yFX8diKQwXakUEh4h1hgOvM-n0HOz00ozBEVU3fzMwI/edit), with a more brief explanation HERE (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=445) in the Human Progress Group).

Why would anyone bother with the uncertainties of a market when they would have the guarantees of a universal free access system? Especially if there is more than one non-market economy in place, e.g. a patchwork of localised gift economies operating alongside continent-spanning energy accounting zones.

There may be other options beyond gift economies and energy accounting (labour credits?); the basic thrust is that a heterogeneous approach to post-capitalist, post-market economics would be sturdier and better able to deal with a range of conditions than a monotonous economic system like what we have today, underpinned by capital and currency and subject to wild fluctuations, the negative effects of which are mostly offloaded onto an inbuilt majority that lacks significant economic and political power.

[Baseball]

People need things like food, shelter, clothing and so on. They don't need a million different bottlecaps or one of the five last original Mercedes cars.

One would hope that socialism is more than saying "Here's some food. eat it" or "there's a house. live there" or "Thats some clothes. wear them."



Of course, but the nature and function of money makes it a great enabler of corruption.

The benefits are far greater than its costs.

Imagine the corruption which would exist under a mixure of barter, energy accounting labor credits. Holy smoke.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

One would hope that socialism is more than saying "Here's some food. eat it" or "there's a house. live there" or "Thats some clothes. wear them."

Well yeah. But money and markets aren't the way for the simple fact that they externalise the social and environmental costs of the choices of a privileged minority at the expense of a relatively powerless majority.


The benefits are far greater than its costs.

This is because... ?


Imagine the corruption which would exist under a mixure of barter, energy accounting labor credits. Holy smoke.

You can imagine almost anything. The reality is that the capitalist price system enables corruption on a scale undreamt of in all history. Something has to replace it for everyone's sake.

[argeiphontes]

Well yeah. But money and markets aren't the way for the simple fact that they externalise the social and environmental costs of the choices of a privileged minority at the expense of a relatively powerless majority.


That's not a description of markets, that's a description of capitalism. Without private ownership of the MoP, wage labor, or a capitalist class, markets aren't very scary at all.

Carmina Burana does not play in my head when I think of business cycles in the absence of private ownership or legal property fictions like equities and what not. It's market fetishism to attribute the problems of capitalist social relations to market exchange itself.

[Bostana]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2885054720/h3BC04DF9/


One would hope that socialism is more than saying "Here's some food. eat it" or "there's a house. live there" or "Thats some clothes. wear them."


Yeah could you imagine a world where people got basic needs without having to be exploited?
There is more to socialism and you would know that if you actually read socialist/communist/anarchist authors and philosophers instead of jumping into an argument basing your knowledge off of what you heard on fox news.


The benefits are far greater than its costs.
Were you referring to the monetary system on this one? Because if so you disgust me. It is easy to say how great the monetary system is when it isn't destroying your life in your upper-middle class neighborhood. When your family doesn't fall victim to the migration of the auto industry from Detroit to mexico after NAFTA. When you're not an immigrant doing hard labor for 50 cents an hour

[argeiphontes]

When your family doesn't fall victim to the migration of the auto industry from Detroit to mexico after NAFTA. When you're not an immigrant doing hard labor for 50 cents an hour

The monetary system isn't doing that, capitalism is. Money is a medium of exchange, it doesn't move plants or pay workers less than the full value of their labor. It's an inanimate object.

[Bostana]

The monetary system isn't doing that, capitalism is. Money is a medium of exchange, it doesn't move plants or pay workers less than the full value of their labor. It's an inanimate object.

The monetary system empowers exploitation, and Capitalism. To abolish it would end the empowerment of both. They're tons of people now and from the past that have tried to believe that and change the monetary system to something positive but as History cries over and over it is simply not possible.

[argeiphontes]

The monetary system empowers exploitation

How does it empower exploitation?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's not a description of markets, that's a description of capitalism. Without private ownership of the MoP, wage labor, or a capitalist class, markets aren't very scary at all.

Capitalism is a natural consequence of markets.


Carmina Burana does not play in my head when I think of business cycles in the absence of private ownership or legal property fictions like equities and what not.

What?


It's market fetishism to attribute the problems of capitalist social relations to market exchange itself.

Social and economic relations take place in the same reality, you can't just divorce the two by fiat.

[argeiphontes]

^So even without private property, wage labor, or capitalist accumulation, capitalism would magically emerge from markets? I find that hard to believe.

Maybe ancient Mesoamerica was capitalist then? Marx might disagree, since he thought capitalism was only a recent phenomenon. (edit: actually, it would appear that there has been money and markets since ancient times, and none of it qualified as capitalism until recently.)

[Fakeblock]

It's market fetishism to attribute the problems of capitalist social relations to market exchange itself.

The market as it exists today is a capitalist social relation, just like wage labour and capital.

[Bostana]

How does it empower exploitation?

Are you fucking serious? The whole rich enough to own private property things kinda rings a bell. Y'know since no one else would be rich enough to own the means of production they must work for the owner of the means of production in order to get money and buy basic needs.

Besides it would be over all better for society for the abolishing of the monetary system

[Baseball]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2885054720/h3BC04DF9/



Yeah could you imagine a world where people got basic needs without having to be exploited?


I am trying to imagine a world where socialists try to imagine how socialism might actually function in the world on a daily basis.

[Bostana]

I am trying to imagine a world where socialists try to imagine how socialism might actually function in the world on a daily basis.
Good 1-liner. This isn't even a response, there isn't an argument or anything

[argeiphontes]

Are you fucking serious? The whole rich enough to own private property things kinda rings a bell. Y'know since no one else would be rich enough to own the means of production they must work for the owner of the means of production in order to get money and buy basic needs.

Besides it would be over all better for society for the abolishing of the monetary system

Yeah, I'm serious because this illustrates my point. Those aren't market things, they are private property and wage labor, which are the social relations of capitalism that I would like to get rid of. Private property is a legal fiction upheld by law and enforced by the police; wage labor is a consequence of private property in the MoP.

It's obvious how capitalism causes capitalism. But how does market exchange cause capitalism? ;)

[Bostana]

Yeah, I'm serious because this illustrates my point. Those aren't market things, they are private property and wage labor, which are the social relations of capitalism that I would like to get rid of. Private property is a legal fiction upheld by law and enforced by the police; wage labor is a consequence of private property in the MoP.

It's obvious how capitalism causes capitalism. But how does market exchange cause capitalism? ;)

The monetary systems creates classes and etc, etc, you know the rest. The whole "More money less problems" things comes to mind it empowers certain people over others. I do see what you're trying to get at (I think I do) but there is just simply no point in keeping the monetary system as the world will just be simply better with out it. It creates rich and poor, well-off and living on the streets. In short life shouldn't be based on ig you own money or not

[Slavic]

It's obvious how capitalism causes capitalism. But how does market exchange cause capitalism? ;)

It doesn't, if there is no medium for exchange ie. Money; but then one would argue that since there is no transfer to a medium then that there was no exchange.

[argeiphontes]

The monetary systems creates classes and etc, etc, you know the rest. The whole "More money less problems" things comes to mind it empowers certain people over others. I do see what you're trying to get at (I think I do) but there is just simply no point in keeping the monetary system as the world will just be simply better with out it. It creates rich and poor, well-off and living on the streets. In short life shouldn't be based on ig you own money or not

For Marx, a class is a relationship to the means of production. It's not just having some more money. Capitalists are capitalists because they control the means of production. Proletarians have no choice but to work for them in the wage labor system. This system of wage labor makes it possible to steal surplus labor from millions of people if the company is big enough. A CEO can make a billion dollars. Because of capitalism, (s)he can reinvest this is more private MoP and make even more money. All of that is made possible by the social relations and not money and markets per se.

In socialism, even if somebody had the money to buy a factory, (s)he isn't able to work it all themselves. There is no wage labor, so you can't just hire people and steal their surplus labor. You can buy a lot of personal possessions or trips to Bermuda, but that isn't going to derail the whole system, it'll just boost the economy because worker coops will be providing those goods and services to the abnormally wealthy person.

[argeiphontes]

It doesn't, if there is no medium for exchange ie. Money; but then one would argue that since there is no transfer to a medium then that there was no exchange.

I don't think that having a medium of exchange creates capitalism, either. It also doesn't create exchange, which you can have without money. You could be a great barter-capitalist if you had to barter for everything (http://dobarter.com/Members/main.asp) and made a barter profit and opened a barter store. Just make sure to barter for a commodity everybody agrees has value, like gold. Oh wait, you've just spontaneously created a medium of exchange...

In fact, to relate back to the OP, you'd have to outlaw money and markets and suppress them using legal means in communism, especially in unique items like collectibles.

[NGNM85]

I think a gift economy would work on the smaller scales, e.g. with localised artisan-based production.

As far as I can see; `Gift economies' are utopian nonsense with no applicability in the real world.


For wide-scale mass production I think something along the lines of energy accounting (http://www.technocracy.ca/tiki-index.php?page=IB29) would be more practical (link is to a brief explanation; more detailed reading can be found HERE (http://www.scribd.com/doc/70385830/Technocracy-Inc-Beyond-the-Price-System-Economics-and-Politics) and HERE (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yFX8diKQwXakUEh4h1hgOvM-n0HOz00ozBEVU3fzMwI/edit), with a more brief explanation HERE (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=445) in the Human Progress Group).

I don't find any of this particularly persuasive, although, admittedly, I only read three of those, in entirety.

This stuff, or, what of it I read, still doesn't explain how it's possible to completely abolish markets, and currency. Quite the contrary;

`The units of this accounting system would be known as Energy Credits, Energy Certificates, or simply Energy Units. Energy accounting would replace money in a Technate, but unlike traditional currencies, energy units could not be saved or earned, only distributed evenly among a populace.'

The proposed `energy credits' are a form of currency, just a particularly unwieldy currency. Nor does this eliminate markets. The process of exchanging credits for goods, and services is no less of a market than today's capitalist markets. This also does nothing to prevent people from trading goods amongst themselves. Therefore, while I tend to be wary of using words like `always', or; `never', etc., I see no reason to adjust my initial assumption that markets are the inevitable, unavoidable consequence of humans living together, in complex societies. I, also, still don't see anything wrong with that.


Why would anyone bother with the uncertainties of a market when they would have the guarantees of a universal free access system? Especially if there is more than one non-market economy in place, e.g. a patchwork of localised gift economies operating alongside continent-spanning energy accounting zones.

It's difficult to respond to the bit about `uncertainties' of markets because it isn't clear to me what you are talking about.

`Energy accounting', as described, is not; `free access.' Consumers would spend energy credits to buy goods and services, which is the definition of; `market', in this context.

As for `gift economies', see above.


There may be other options beyond gift economies and energy accounting (labour credits?); the basic thrust is that a heterogeneous approach to post-capitalist, post-market economics would be sturdier and better able to deal with a range of conditions than a monotonous economic system like what we have today, underpinned by capital and currency and subject to wild fluctuations, the negative effects of which are mostly offloaded onto an inbuilt majority that lacks significant economic and political power.

Again; Labor credits, like energy credits, are (hypothetical) currencies. The use of these currencies to purchase goods, and services constitutes a market.

Again, it's not clear what you are referring to, but I would wager most of the fluctuations, and the consequences, thereof, that you're referring to are a function of capitalism, not markets.

Capitalism is not `underpinned' by currency. Capitalism rests on private ownership of the means of production which is maintained through force, as well as complex systems of propaganda, and indoctrination.

If the workers, themselves, actually do (collectively) own, and (democratically) administrate the means of production, they do not lack significant economic, and political power, to the contrary, they would have all of the political, and economic power.

[PhoenixAsh]

Depending on which tendency wins the revolution...this will be a mood point to debate.

Collect shit = 20 years Siberia...you can collect work and re-education camp tattoos there. Ah....but you aren't allowed to collect. That is another 20 years for you! Maha ha! (evil Stalinist laugh) :hammersickle: :star3:

[PhoenixAsh]

anyways...

Since "market" is a very general term that widely applies to any form of exchange...we perhaps need to have a definition of the term which sets it apart from one economic system to another.

To abolish any form of market in the general sense would disallow any form of exchange. But a capitalist market is to be understood in terms of profit and loss...and definitely not an equal value exchange system.

[Red Intellectual]

Even under current capitalism people are giving used goods away for (nearly) nothing, that's just generosity and charity. I think that under communism it would be no different.