Market Socialism Critique

[Servia]

What are some arguments against "market socialism"?

[Q]

Could you define it? Is it similar to your question here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/worker-cooperative-competition-t191566/index.html)? If so, then it's not socialism at all.

[Sabot Cat]

What are some arguments against "market socialism"?

My main issue is that it would work against the eventual emergence of communism by reinforcing the market, wherein consumers as well as those that make the products and provide the services are alienated from the labor that went into them. It's only when the means of production are socialized do we have socialism.

[Bakunin's Apprentice]

My main issue is that it would work against the eventual emergence of communism by reinforcing the market, wherein consumers as well as those that make the products and provide the services are alienated from the labor that went into them. It's only when the means of production are socialized do we have socialism.

Mutualism ≠ Marketism

[Comrade Jacob]

Markets are designed for one party to win over the other so it's simply anti-communist.

[TheAntiReactionary]

My opinion so far is that while it should not be the final goal of the proletariat, it seems like the only option for a country undergoing revolution without attempting to establish autarky, due to there being a global market in place. Enlighten me if there are facts I am unaware of.

[QueerVanguard]

What are some arguments against "market socialism"?

How about that it ain't socialist?

[QueerVanguard]

Mutualism ≠ Marketism

Figures "Bakunin's Apprentice" would double down on petite bourgie Mutualist Market crapitalism.

[swims with the fishes]

market socialism does not end commodity production. co-ops would compete in the same way as capitalist firms do today. surplus value would be the means and the end. environmental degradation, poverty and national chauvinism would continue.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2840857&postcount=17





'[M]arket socialism' [...] is problematic for its (necessarily) indeterminate addressing of 'value' -- in other words, what would a 'dollar' (of post-capitalist cryptocurrency or whatever) be *worth*, and how would it be valuated as that in the first place -- ?




One option would be a kind of 'state' organization that uses some kind of formula to *assign* certain valuations to the currency for particular tasks and goods, but then that would be a social *specialization*, or authority, over that function, which would be inherently anti-collectivist.

What other options would remain for assigning valuations -- ?

Letting values *float*, according to supply-and-demand, would just be back to the *market* system, which implies *commodification* of goods and labor, even if the means of mass production / production goods have all been collectivized -- 'market socialism'.

The intrinsic problem with *any* kind of currency regime (including bartering) is that it inherently maintains a realm of *exchange values* alongside the *use values* of actual, everyday usage. Socially and politically we can argue for the realm of 'use values' to prevail, so that people are no longer supporting 'wealth' and profit-making, but as long as the realm of *exchange values* exists at all, its existence, and preference, *will* remain as an available option for the people of that society.

[tuwix]

What are some arguments against "market socialism"?

All are useless as market will never cease to exist even when money will. Barter will never cease to exist. Market can only be marginalized. But improper marginalization will cause a development of black market as it happened in the Soviet Union, for example.

[Sewer Socialist]

My opinion so far is that while it should not be the final goal of the proletariat, it seems like the only option for a country undergoing revolution without attempting to establish autarky, due to there being a global market in place. Enlighten me if there are facts I am unaware of.

This may be true, but that would not make it socialism. Socialism isn't defined as the best a country undergoing revolution can manage. If they can't establish socialism and insulate from market pressure, then they simply can't do it. Socialism may only come about with the general, global defeat of the market.

[ckaihatsu]

All are useless as market will never cease to exist even when money will. Barter will never cease to exist. Market can only be marginalized. But improper marginalization will cause a development of black market as it happened in the Soviet Union, for example.


Whatever your *personal* experiences have been, tuwix, I think we need to look at what's *possible* -- if society can get to where anything that someone needs or wants can be *supplied directly* from producers, that would make all 'middleman' exchanges -- as through currency, markets, or bartering -- *superfluous* and more trouble than they're worth.

Already we have online shopping which allows a kind of centralization that's advantageous to the consumer -- this same kind of approach, for all matters of *labor* that *supply* the consumer with what they need and want, would effectively make markets, and even money, *extraneous* and would be a high-tech, Internet-enabled kind of socialism, a no-brainer, really.

[tuwix]

^^
ckaihatsu, As far as i know you seen to have problem to see some parts of reality. :) This time very, very small. :)

If you want to consider, as you try, that anything is for free, then barter will still exist. In very marginal form, nonetheless, it will. Everything is free? Fine. But kids will always exchange toys. It's barter and barter is market. Besides neighbors will exchange tools, etc. And I don't think that such substances as heroin will be fully accessible. So there is a possibility of black market.

As you see, market will never cease to exist. But communism (higher phase) is only a way to marginalize it to very small extent.

[Alet]

All are useless as market will never cease to exist even when money will. Barter will never cease to exist. Market can only be marginalized. But improper marginalization will cause a development of black market as it happened in the Soviet Union, for example.

We don't want money and markets to disappear because of idiotic aesthetic or idealistic reasons. They alienate people and thus prevent their social development. It should be a matter of course that we try to find a way to abolish them. But this way is already given. When production is planned and widgets are produced according to needs, what would you need money or barter for? This is just pointless. And the Soviet Union is really not the best example.



If you want to consider, as you try, that anything is for free, then barter will still exist. In very marginal form, nonetheless, it will. Everything is free? Fine. But kids will always exchange toys. It's barter and barter is market. Besides neighbors will exchange tools, etc. And I don't think that such substances as heroin will be fully accessible. So there is a possibility of black market.

Why would you think so? We are talking about a new society which expands familiar relations to a societal level. Do you barter in your own family? Yet we cannot say for sure if kids would still be exchanging toys or neighbors tools etc. But there are lots of reasons to assume that they won't but instead just... ask for it. Just as they do to get their widgets. There is no biological determinism which forces us to barter. Even small actions are products of the social environment. If you see people exchanging goods in private, it is because they are already alienated from each other, it is because it's the only way they know to get goods from other people properly.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

To put it simply, socialism is a society where things and services are produced for human need, not as commodities. Markets are (these days usually metaphorical) places where commodity exchange happens. As long as commodity exchange exists, socialism doesn't; when socialism exists, commodity exchange and the markets don't.

And if you want a laugh, ask tuwix to explain what a market is.

[Tim Cornelis]

I haven't read it, but there's this book by a Trotskyist called 'Against the market', maybe it's of use. (or maybe someone's read it and has an opinion?)

[ckaihatsu]

^^
ckaihatsu, As far as i know you seen to have problem to see some parts of reality. :) This time very, very small. :)

If you want to consider, as you try, that anything is for free, then barter will still exist. In very marginal form, nonetheless, it will. Everything is free? Fine. But kids will always exchange toys. It's barter and barter is market. Besides neighbors will exchange tools, etc. And I don't think that such substances as heroin will be fully accessible. So there is a possibility of black market.

As you see, market will never cease to exist. But communism (higher phase) is only a way to marginalize it to very small extent.


Alet has already made the points as well as I possibly could have.

I'll just note that the only reason exchanges would take place *at all* is due to an overall, systemic *deprivation* of some kind -- after all why *bother* with the complication of giving something up if one really didn't have to, to get the actual thing that one wants -- ?

If there's enough of *everything* then no one has to give up *anything*, and people still get what they *actually* want, whether it's toys, tools, or drugs.

If someone is *done* with something they can always just pass it on, or return it to the 'commons' for anyone else to possibly select for re-use.

[tuwix]

We don't want money and markets to disappear because of idiotic aesthetic or idealistic reasons. They alienate people and thus prevent their social development. It should be a matter of course that we try to find a way to abolish them. But this way is already given. When production is planned and widgets are produced according to needs, what would you need money or barter for?


For convenience. Kinds and neighbors will exchange goods faster than they would get it from somewhere else.



Do you barter in your own family?


Sometimes.





Yet we cannot say for sure if kids would still be exchanging toys or neighbors tools etc.

Maybe you can't, but I can. Until there wouldn't be in use replicators as there are in Start Trek it can be easier to exchange some things than to get it new from distribution centers. But even they will exist then always some of millions kids will exchange toys. Because why shouldn't do it? Exchange of toys is natural way of doing by kids.




If there's enough of *everything* then no one has to give up *anything*, and people still get what they *actually* want, whether it's toys, tools, or drugs.


You write about coercion and I write about possibility and utility. If it is something more convenient, than other, then people will do it. And without replicator, exchange many times will be more convenient than getting form economy without exchange. And even after that exchange of toys will be happening.



If someone is *done* with something they can always just pass it on, or return it to the 'commons' for anyone else to possibly select for re-use.

S/he may but s\he may not as well. Will you fight against it? Will you try to forbid it? Probably not. So market as barter will exist.

[Alet]

For convenience. Kinds and neighbors will exchange goods faster than they would get it from somewhere else.

You don't have to barter to get the things you want. As I said, people are able to share, especially when they have a close relationship with each other.


Maybe you can't, but I can.

You can only guess based on ideological assumptions like barter is a "natural way of doing" (this reminds me of Adam Smith somehow). There might be unconscious barter in a communist society, but it will not evolve into a black market and is therefore irrelevant.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You giving me the Barbie doll you were using because I gave you the Action Man figure I was using is about as much of a barter as (this is a true story) my family letting someone else tend olive trees that technically belong to them in exchange for some oil is feudalism. Marxism concerns large-scale, society-wide mechanisms.

That and the market, as opposed to tuwix's Mickey Mouse notion that sees the market everywhere, is an exchange of equal values. There are no values in socialism. None. So you can't have market exchange. Ever.

[tuwix]

You don't have to barter to get the things you want. As I said, people are able to share, especially when they have a close relationship with each other.
(...)There might be unconscious barter in a communist society, but it will not evolve into a black market and is therefore irrelevant.

Relevant or not, you admitted there might be. And IMHO it certainly will. Conscious or not barter is still a form market.

But if something will be forbidden to have, then black market happens always...


And I still don't discuss with economic ignorants who are not able to grasp simple definitions in period of few years, as market or elite. Even if they live in Croatia..

[Tim Cornelis]

Can we restrict tuwix? :rolleyes:

(not srs, okay a bit srs)

[ckaihatsu]

If there's enough of *everything* then no one has to give up *anything*, and people still get what they *actually* want, whether it's toys, tools, or drugs.





You write about coercion and I write about possibility and utility.


No, you're *imputing* that -- I'm talking about material quantities and *availability*:





If there's enough of *everything* then no one has to give up *anything*, and people still get what they *actually* want, whether it's toys, tools, or drugs.


---





If it is something more convenient, than other, then people will do it.


This is really the crux of the matter -- we're going in circles on this issue of 'barter vs. distribution' because each of us thinks that our own favored way will ultimately be more *convenient* (and accessible) than the other.





And without replicator, exchange many times will be more convenient than getting form economy without exchange.


I find it fascinating that you're so adamant about the (purported) utility of person-to-person *barter* -- don't you realize that each person would have a quite-limited collection of personal possessions in their vicinity, for a quite-limited range of *choice* extended to the other party -- ?

Compare this to the reality of online shopping, where the range of consumer choice extends to *millions* of items, all instantly accessible by keyword -- if the collective-labor-empowerment and demand-fulfillment issues were resolved, for a resulting socialist society, wouldn't the direct-distribution from this kind of collective production be far more preferable to a living-room-floor swapping of mine-for-yours -- ? -- !

At this point I really think you're more attached to the *sentiment* of your beloved 'barter', than for any other reason.





And even after that exchange of toys will be happening.




S/he may but s\he may not as well. Will you fight against it? Will you try to forbid it? Probably not. So market as barter will exist.


This isn't about *me*, tuwix, and it isn't about any 'authority' either -- it's about what *approach* to the ever-present societal issue of *production* would be most appropriate, for the best outcomes for everyone.

[Alet]

Relevant or not, you admitted there might be. And IMHO it certainly will. Conscious or not barter is still a form market.

Now I see what Xhar-Xhar Binks meant. As he said, there are no values anymore. Barter in our society is conscious, which basically means that it is aimed at striking a bargain which is as good as possible in each trade partner's view. But two people owning useless things and therefore making a present to each other is different and definitely not a market.


But if something will be forbidden to have, then black market happens always...

There is nothing which has to be forbidden.

[ckaihatsu]

Can we restrict tuwix? :rolleyes:

(not srs, okay a bit srs)


Became a Global Moderator recently, so now it's time for some Global Moderatin' -- !


x D


(Just kidding.)

[tuwix]

This is really the crux of the matter -- we're going in circles on this issue of 'barter vs. distribution' because each of us thinks that our own favored way will ultimately be more *convenient* (and accessible) than the other.





I find it fascinating that you're so adamant about the (purported) utility of person-to-person *barter* -- don't you realize that each person would have a quite-limited collection of personal possessions in their vicinity, for a quite-limited range of *choice* extended to the other party -- ?

Compare this to the reality of online shopping, where the range of consumer choice extends to *millions* of items, all instantly accessible by keyword -- if the collective-labor-empowerment and demand-fulfillment issues were resolved, for a resulting socialist society, wouldn't the direct-distribution from this kind of collective production be far more preferable to a living-room-floor swapping of mine-for-yours -- ? -- !

At this point I really think you're more attached to the *sentiment* of your beloved 'barter', than for any other reason.


My dear ckaihatsu, we have, as usual problems to understand each other. :) Barter isn't beloved by me. As gravitation, oxygen, clouds, etc. They're just phenomenons that are part of reality. Certainly one can ignore them. But they still exist and will. As barter exactly will. When any lady will ask for saying "I will grateful for that", then it's exchange and barter too. She ask for favor in exchange for gratitude. And will you tell to anyone that will never happen?

This is why barter as form of market will exist always. And anyone ignore or acknowledge that.




. But two people owning useless things and therefore making a present to each other is different and definitely not a market.


Barter is just exchange of goods or services. And barter is a form of market. And utility has nothing to do with that.

[Alet]

My dear ckaihatsu, we have, as usual problems to understand each other. :) Barter isn't beloved by me. As gravitation, oxygen, clouds, etc. They're just phenomenons that are part of reality. Certainly one can ignore them. But they still exist and will. As barter exactly will. When any lady will ask for saying "I will grateful for that", then it's exchange and barter too. She ask for favor in exchange for gratitude. And will you tell to anyone that will never happen?

This is why barter as form of market will exist always. And anyone ignore or acknowledge that.





Barter is just exchange of goods or services. And barter is a form of market. And utility has nothing to do with that.

Does anyone else think of economics professors teaching that you always need capital to produce, just as Stone Age man's spear was capital when reading this? Well, at least we can agree on the fact that your idea of a market is reducable to a level of irrelevance (hopefully).

[tuwix]

Does anyone else think of economics professors teaching that you always need capital to produce, just as Stone Age man's spear was capital when reading this?


Any capital isn't needed for barter nor market. Barter was existent during primitive communism, feudalism and will exist in advanced communism. And capitalism marginalized market expanding money exchange.



Well, at least we can agree on the fact that your idea of markets are reducable to a level of irrelevance (hopefully).

Yes. As I wrote in the beginning of the topic, market can only be marginalized. For the level, of irrelevance, for example.

[ckaihatsu]

My dear ckaihatsu, we have, as usual problems to understand each other. :) Barter isn't beloved by me. As gravitation, oxygen, clouds, etc. They're just phenomenons that are part of reality. Certainly one can ignore them. But they still exist and will. As barter exactly will. When any lady will ask for saying "I will grateful for that", then it's exchange and barter too. She ask for favor in exchange for gratitude. And will you tell to anyone that will never happen?

This is why barter as form of market will exist always. And anyone ignore or acknowledge that.





Barter is just exchange of goods or services. And barter is a form of market. And utility has nothing to do with that.


Yes, tuwix, I understand that your insistence is on the basis of one-off, impromptu situations where something is spontaneously handed-over, as for a personal favor.

You might do the rest of us a favor here and stop referring to this kind of action as a 'market', since such is a severe *overstatement*. Even calling it 'barter' is too much, since there's no quid-pro-quo if someone is just doing a one-way *favor* for someone else, with an unknown chance of repayment in the future.

[tuwix]

^^ ckaihatsu, but tell me why do you need this favor so much? Because as far I know, the only reason is that so many people here hate a word 'market'. IMHO, it's very irrational emotion. And fighting with something that's going never to die can be very, very detrimental. From the history of the Soviet Union, for example, we can see how can it end...

[ckaihatsu]

^^ ckaihatsu, but tell me why do you need this favor so much?


It's because of much bad fortune when I was growing up. That, and a lack of role models.


x D





Because as far I know, the only reason is that so many people here hate a word 'market'.


As I mentioned, it's simply that 'market' is not the most accurate term to use. *Your* concern is with personal transactions that are nowhere near the scale of joint-stock arrangements that leverage *massive* amounts of capital, for investment, for the markets.





IMHO, it's very irrational emotion. And fighting with something that's going never to die can be very, very detrimental. From the history of the Soviet Union, for example, we can see how can it end...


I think revolutionaries the world over will still be able to sleep at night even if kids in their / our future post-capitalist society insist on swapping presents near the Christmas tree on Christmas morning (or whatever).

Your conception of socialism seems to extend as far as whoever is seated at your kitchen table, tuwix -- just sayin'.

[tuwix]

It's because of much bad fortune when I was growing up. That, and a lack of role models.


x D



Now I see. :D





I think revolutionaries the world over will still be able to sleep at night even if kids in their / our future post-capitalist society insist on swapping presents near the Christmas tree on Christmas morning (or whatever).



But one simple word 'market' is just causing severe nightmares... :)




Your conception of socialism seems to extend as far as whoever is seated at your kitchen table, tuwix -- just sayin'.


I like roots of words. And socialism has Latin origin from word 'societas' that means a system where people rule in opposition to capitalism where capital rules.

[oneday]

All are useless as market will never cease to exist even when money will. Barter will never cease to exist.

I'm still trying to figure out what exchanging christmas presents has to do with a critique of market socialism. Barter might still exist so critiques of market socialism are useless?

[tuwix]

^^As market although in form of incidental barter will always exist, then every socialism is market socialism and then critique is useless.

But problem is deeper: all who want impossible that is abolition of market never lived in the environment where there were attempts to abolish market. I did and I know very well how does it look like...

[Alet]

You have a really fucked up definition of 'market', just saying. I think a proper Marxist term to describe that would be 'market fetishism'. However, I am 99% sure that OP did not give a shit about a service in exchange for a 'thank you' and was talking about real markets, just as 99% of all people do when they use that term. Therefore, to summarize it:


We don't want money and markets to disappear because of idiotic aesthetic or idealistic reasons. They alienate people and thus prevent their social development. It should be a matter of course that we try to find a way to abolish them. But this way is already given. When production is planned and widgets are produced according to needs, what would you need money or barter for? This is just pointless. (...)
There is no biological determinism which forces us to barter [consciously]. Even small actions are products of the social environment. If you see people exchanging goods [consciously] in private, it is because they are already alienated from each other, it is because it's the only way they know to get goods from other people properly.

This is my official critique.

[tuwix]

You have a really fucked up definition of 'market', just saying.

And have you ever read any any definition of this term? I don't think so.


A market is one of the many varieties of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby parties engage in exchange. While parties may exchange goods and services by barter,(...)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_(economics)

And know you can quote Marx when he says that market will ever disappear. Can't you?

[oneday]

^^As market although in form of incidental barter will always exist, then every socialism is market socialism and then critique is useless.


I can give a homeless person some food according to need, or go to a Burning Man festival where there is no market or commodities. Communism will always exist, therefore every capitalism is commie capitalism and critique of capitalism is useless.

[Tim Cornelis]

"then critique is useless", no it isn't, because we'd still be talking about a different concept. And it's annoying to keep pointing out that those definitions you keep coming up with do not say what you think they say and that you also apply an etymological fallacy with your definition of socialism and whatnot.

[tuwix]

I can give a homeless person some food according to need, or go to a Burning Man festival where there is no market or commodities. Communism will always exist, therefore every capitalism is commie capitalism and critique of capitalism is useless.

If you think so, then don't criticize, but I will. :)

But market exists in this festival. And communism in its primitive version did, does and will exist as primitive societies exist. The problem is to build its advanced version and worldwide...




"then critique is useless", no it isn't, because we'd still be talking about a different concept.

Indeed. You're talking what is your imagination and I'm talking what is defined... But we've discussed it yet. There is no need to go into the same river again. :)




what you think they say and that you also apply an etymological fallacy with your definition of socialism and whatnot.

This 'fallacy' can perfectly fit with scientifically recognized definitions of the term. I don't ignore definitions because they're inconvenient for my opinions as some others do. :)

[Rudolf]

I like roots of words. And socialism has Latin origin from word 'societas' that means a system where people rule in opposition to capitalism where capital rules.


Wait, are you saying the word societas means opposition to capital? Societas means fellowship, association, union (not in the worker's movement sense) etc. It could be applied for any ideology, any movement.





Anyway, this thread boggles my mind. It seems theres a bit of playing with words when it comes to market and exchange. Me giving a friend a sandwich who has been helping me move stuff all day isn't an exchange of commodities as the labour time embedded in the use-values is irrelevant. That sandwich could have embedded within it no labour time needed to bring forth its utility. The amount of labour time is beside the point. This back and forth facilitates our social bond. Consequently the use-values are not the material bearers of exchange value in this but instead the material bearer of our social bond and is thus not open to the same analysis as the exchange of commodities.


As for the analysis of the exchange of commodities even within the context of a market socialism, it follows from Das Kapital as capital cannot be abolished without the abolition of generalised commodity production and exchange.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Chancellor" comes from the Latin term cancella, a lattice screen used in courtrooms.

Someone please make Angela Merkel do her job and stand next to such a screen as an usher.

[tuwix]

Wait, are you saying the word societas means opposition to capital?


No. 'Societas' is an origin of society too. Then society in opposition to capital.




Anyway, this thread boggles my mind. It seems theres a bit of playing with words when it comes to market and exchange. Me giving a friend a sandwich who has been helping me move stuff all day isn't an exchange of commodities as the labour time embedded in the use-values is irrelevant. That sandwich could have embedded within it no labour time needed to bring forth its utility. The amount of labour time is beside the point. This back and forth facilitates our social bond. Consequently the use-values are not the material bearers of exchange value in this but instead the material bearer of our social bond and is thus not open to the same analysis as the exchange of commodities.


As for the analysis of the exchange of commodities even within the context of a market socialism, it follows from Das Kapital as capital cannot be abolished without the abolition of generalised commodity production and exchange.


Market in many languages (Polish and English for example) means a place where trade happens. Originally it was a square at the middle of a town or city where people came to exchange goods. The buildings around that square where full of artisans who offered their services. And the most important of this that happened during primitive communism too. So as there wasn't needed money and private property for market to exist, then it isn't needed now...

[Tim Cornelis]

lol, there were markets in town squares with artisans during primitive communism? Come on, at least invest some time in rudimentary research before making claims. Primitive communism was based on hunting and gathering. There was nothing to trade. They hunted, shared it, ate it. They gathered, shared it, ate it.

[Црвена]

This again?


No. 'Societas' is an origin of society too. Then society in opposition to capital.





Market in many languages (Polish and English for example) means a place where trade happens. Originally it was a square at the middle of a town or city where people came to exchange goods. The buildings around that square where full of artisans who offered their services. And the most important of this that happened during primitive communism too. So as there wasn't needed money and private property for market to exist, then it isn't needed now...

What is needed in order for a market to exist is labour to be exploited. Do you think that will exist in socialism?

[Rudolf]

No. 'Societas' is an origin of society too. Then society in opposition to capital.

You can draw on the word societas for anything to do with people. But etymology is irrelevant. The meaning of words don't necessarily have to do with their etymology. The only importance of etymology is looking at how languages evolve. Take the words 'deus', zeus, jupiter, tyr, diva etc these are all from the proto-indoeuropean dyeus which literally means sky. But of coruse Hades/Pluto doesn't live in the sky he lives in the underworld and that didn't stop him from being divine (divine obviously also has its root in dyeus).



Market in many languages (Polish and English for example) means a place where trade happens. Originally it was a square at the middle of a town or city where people came to exchange goods. so what? Im fond of language, fond of linguistics but it's irrelevant.




The buildings around that square where full of artisans who offered their services. And the most important of this that happened during primitive communism too.

Prove it.



So as there wasn't needed money and private property for market to exist, then it isn't needed now...

I never mentioned money. Money is beside the point as it arises to facilitate the exchange of commodities.


You've not mentioned the point of my post: that use-values as the material bearers of exchange value are not the same as use-values that act as the material bearers of our social bonds. Basically, the exchange of commodities is not the same as gift-giving even if these gifts are given within close temporal proximity.

[tuwix]

lol, there were markets in town squares with artisans during primitive communism? Come on, at least invest some time in rudimentary research before making claims. Primitive communism was based on hunting and gathering. There was nothing to trade. They hunted, shared it, ate it. They gathered, shared it, ate it.

Have you ever heard about old-Prussian people? Then read something about them. They haven't created an own state. They haven't introduced a feudalism. But they had towns. Truso - for example. And do you know what is the sytem in human history before feudalism or not?





What is needed in order for a market to exist is labour to be exploited. Do you think that will exist in socialism?

No. Market doesn't demand an exploitation. I think you don't know its definition. But let's consider a scenario supported by Proudhon or Bakunin. We have cooperatives as only way for economic activity. Each member of cooperative is co-owner of his/her cooperative. And all those cooperative are participating in market with regulation. Then tell me where is exploitation there? Where is surplus-value?



The meaning of words don't necessarily have to do with their etymology.


Indeed. But sometimes it has very much. And I like when it's the case because it shows profoundness of some words




Prove it.


There was a tribe of old-Prussians, they haven't formed own state before were conquested by some catholic order. But they had towns before a conquest. And now tell what was a system of social organisation before feudalism?




I never mentioned money. Money is beside the point as it arises to facilitate the exchange of commodities.


Definition of market includes a barter. Consideration is something commodity or not in very Marxist understanding is irrelevant to me because Marx hasn't defined a market.