Trade in a communist society

[oneday]

Would there always be an inevitability of barter trade occurring since it seems unlikely that scarcity of goods could be eradicated completely by a planned system? What should be the attitude of a communist society towards these exchanges?

I don't mean that exchange would be a large or defining part of the economy, just that it would occur in places where there is a temporary local shortage of goods, or a desire for certain goods has not been completely satisfied.

[VivalaCuarta]

Trade presupposes private property, so no there won't. When drivers and pedestrians navigate the road, alternately occupying the same sections of pavement, are they "trading" the road? When library patrons effectively exchange books with each other, are they "bartering" commodities?

[VivalaCuarta]

In capitalist society, will there be corvees or other traditional payments in kind to our natural superiors? Well, I guess some people still tithe to their spiritual lords, but basically, no.

[Tim Cornelis]

Roads are not an individual consumer goods, so that's a false equivalence. As for incidental bartering, no one would care.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Trade is the exchange of commodities. Commodities are not produced in the socialist society. Barter is not technically impossible, but it will be completely pointless, as the socialist society will both plan production to match demand and more importantly communalise consumption such that most of the artificial barriers to consumption that exist today will be gone.

[cyu]

When pissed off enough, the anarcho-communists will go on a rampage and pillage all the bartered goods anyway ;)

(In other words, when there are people who don't take property claims seriously, the only way to prevent "theft" would be by ensuring there's enough to satisfy everybody, instead of just producing for the rich and leaving the poor to die.)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Trade will not be necessary in its current form since, as said above, we understand trade to be an exchange of commodities. Exchange requires markets and commodities require generalised commodity production fuelled by the exploitation of this or that social group. Neither markets nor generalised commodity production - we hope - would be a feature of a humane, post-capitalist society.

However, in everyday terms, 'trade' would obviously still exist. I think to deny this is fantasy. The key difference is that whereas informal economies (trade between friends, family and acquaintances) will always exist, trade in the formal sense (governed by state and market institutions and structures) is really anathema to a humane society, when it is based on profit and not people.

[ckaihatsu]

---





What I'm hearing -- and please correct me on any misunderstanding here -- is that, no matter what the size, each commune would provide a direct distribution of its production *internally* to within its boundaries, while making certain goods available for exchanges *externally*, to other communes.

If this is the case then this is basically a patchwork *syndicalism*, and is not full communism. The existence of *any* exchanges, anywhere, implies an implicit *valuation* taking place, since communes could very well find themselves in competition with other ones, for the production of something for export. (One commune might be able to produce the thing for *less* in commensurate exchange, than another.)

Communism implies a full, unvarying 'direct distribution' so as to avoid any kind of exchanges whatsoever, so as to obviate exchange values entirely.