Market

[STN]

What does the World Market, or a free market have to do with communism?
What does trade have to do with communism?
What are these things like under communism?

[anomaly]

There is no market under communism, nor is there trade. In fact, these are two things which must neccesarily be destroyed in communist society (by its very definition!).

[STN]

There is no market under communism, nor is there trade. In fact, these are two things which must neccesarily be destroyed in communist society (by its very definition!).

Why is there no market or trade?

[LSD]

Why is there no market or trade?

The "market" is the underpining of the capitalist economy, the system which communism seeks to destroy.

It does so not out of vindictiveness of malicious glee, but out of a rational recognition of the kind of society that the "market" and the system it supports create.

For the "market" to function in the ubiquitious manner that capitalism nescessitates, everything must be a comodity. Now, obviously, mixed economies like the ones in which most of the world lives do not actually fully achieve this. Indeed, the bourgeoisie has been forced to make some compromises along the way and, in some countries more than others, several social protections have been spared the process of comodification.

Regardless, though, it is in the interest of capitalism to put anything and everything onto the "open market". That is why you so often see the right complaining about "market hampering" or "government intervention". They are desperate to keep the "market" as powerful as they possibly can because it is the fundamental base of their power.

The left, however, derives its power from the people and so opposes the market and the idea of private comodities because of what it does to society. You see, when everything is "owned" and "private property", it nescessitates inequality .

If everything that exists must have a specifc owner and individual owners trade "property", then distribution must become uneven. Basic laws of social entropy dictate that it is impossible for equality to "persist" if trade is fluid. Even if all else is equal, social disperity is inevitable.

And, of course, things are very far from being equal!

The fact is that while a functionarly meritocratic society would be socially unblanced, capitalism doesn't even live up to that standard. In capitalist society, ownership does not come out of "smarts" or "skill", it comes out of class position, class interest, and a whole lot of luck.

Such a system is only benneficial to those who are already at the top and their successors Since that does not include any of us, it is in our interest to oppose capitalism and to labour to bring it down. Likewise, it is in the interest of 99% of the world.

This is not merely an "ideological" struggle (although there are numerous philisophical arguments against capitalism), it's a practical one. The "market" and "trade" are implicitly exploitative institutions and so we oppose them out of self-interest.

We fight capitalism for the same reason that a slave fights slavery, it's oppressing us, and we aren't willing to take it anymore.

[loveme4whoiam]

So trade as we know it will be gone, but surely communes will trade commodities with each other on a requirement basis? I mean, if one commune over-produces, I don't know, cheese, and a nearby commune requires cheese, would they not simply give them the excess? This eliminates any exploitation from the process of trade, so would be acceptable?

[KC]

So trade as we know it will be gone, but surely communes will trade commodities with each other on a requirement basis?

Commodities will no longer exist. Yes, use-values will be distributed throughout different communities.

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:17 AM
So trade as we know it will be gone, but surely communes will trade commodities with each other on a requirement basis? I mean, if one commune over-produces, I don't know, cheese, and a nearby commune requires cheese, would they not simply give them the excess? This eliminates any exploitation from the process of trade, so would be acceptable?
Exchange of products between different geographical regions is of course necessary... however, the concept of a "market" is only one way to do it, the capitalist way.

For example, I live in BC Canada. I'm sure after the revolution we will have a large forestry industry, accompanied by saw-mills, and probably things such as giant furnature factories (which currently are all in China, but in a planned economy this would make no sense). This doesn't mean that each person in BC will have a house crammed with wooden chairs, while at the same time a person in, for example, Manhattan, would be without a chair to sit on thanks to not having a tree within ten miles. That is rediculous.

There will be systems for the distribution of goods around the world, and production will be localised based on resources, human, natural, and productive. This distribution however, will be based on need and decided upon in a democratic way, using the principle: from each according to his ability to each according to his need. This will be regulated in by committees which would most likely have elements of both industry and geographical representation, with delegates elected from lower committees. I can't go into any more detail because, of course, nobody can accurately predict what will the final structure of all this will look like.

We must remember that it is not nearly enough to simply give the excess to a nearby commune. The uneven distribution of resources is on a global scale and not a local one, and the distribution systems in place must be equally global.