Communism and trade?

[England Expects]

What is the position of communist countries with regard to internaitional trade? I am curious.

[Zingu]

What do you mean by that?

"Communist" China or Cuba trading with outside capitalist nations?

Or do you mean the theoritical idea of a global communist society, and how trade relations would resume then?

[encephalon]

Please clarify the question. And you may want to rephrase a few key terms to avoid future comments on them.

[England Expects]

What happens when a communist coutry exists in a world where every other country is a liberal democracy.

Can the communists trade with the rest?

[overlord]

Yes....poorly.

[Seong]

What a well considered and highly analytical response dickweed.

I would imagine that trade would exist in a similar fashion to what it presently is. The only difference is that we would exchange imports and exports on more of a barter system since there wouldn't be any money in a communist society. If there was something we had that another country needed, and that country also had something we needed we could engage in trade.

Unless you're willing to make reasoned arguments I suggest you piss off.

[overlord]

What a well considered and highly analytical response dickweed.

I would imagine that trade would exist in a similar fashion to what it presently is. The only difference is that we would exchange imports and exports on more of a barter system since there wouldn't be any money in a communist society. If there was something we had that another country needed, and that country also had something we needed we could engage in trade.

Unless you're willing to make reasoned arguments I suggest you piss off.

Actually I purposely constructed a short sentence so a comrade of your intellect might have a chance of grasping a simple concept. Looks like I was wrong. That statement was too complicated by far. Get this into your commie skull:

Cuba DOES NOT TRADE

North Korea DOES NOT TRADE

Seriously I would have thought even someone like 'Seong' could have understood after 100 years of communism that trade is impossible. Looks like I was wrong.

And what is it with communists and swearing? Are your arguments that bad?

Now if that's too complicated for 'Seong' I can always start drawing pictures.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 09:42 AM
I would imagine that trade would exist in a similar fashion to what it presently is. The only difference is that we would exchange imports and exports on more of a barter system since there wouldn't be any money in a communist society. If there was something we had that another country needed, and that country also had something we needed we could engage in trade.
Wouldn't that be very inefficient?

One major function of money is that it is a medium of exchange. Without it traders need to wait for a double coincidence of wants/needs before they can make an exchange and this takes much longer than waiting for someone to come along with some money.

Without an efficient medium of exchange in an economy the material wealth of the economy is lower than it could be with one.

[cyu]

Cuba DOES NOT TRADE

North Korea DOES NOT TRADE

I don't know about North Korea, but I'm pretty sure Cuba engages in international trade, at least with the countries that don't make it illegal to trade with Cuba. It's funny anti-communists don't want anyone in their country to trade with Cuba, while at the same time claim they believe in free trade.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:49 PM

Cuba DOES NOT TRADE

North Korea DOES NOT TRADE

I don't know about North Korea, but I'm pretty sure Cuba engages in international trade, at least with the countries that don't make it illegal to trade with Cuba. It's funny anti-communists don't want anyone in their country to trade with Cuba, while at the same time claim they believe in free trade.
Why do countries refuse to trade with Cuba and North Korea?

Is there an embargo and if so what is the reason for it?

[cyu]

Why do countries refuse to trade with Cuba and North Korea?

Is there an embargo and if so what is the reason for it?

I haven't investigated North Korea, but here's what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba says:

"Cuba currently trades with almost every nation in the world, albeit with restrictions from the U.S. embargo. Trade with the United States is restricted to cash-only transactions for food and medicine. Any company that deals with Cuba risks problems dealing with the United States, so internationally operating companies may be forced to choose between Cuba and the United States, which is a far larger market. This extraterritorial U.S. legislation is considered highly controversial, and the U.S. embargo was condemned for the 13th time in 2004 by the General Assembly of the United Nations, by 179 countries (out of 183 voting). The main current trading partners of Cuba are: Venezuela, China, Spain, Canada and, the Netherlands."

More information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...go_against_Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba)

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 11:45 PM

Why do countries refuse to trade with Cuba and North Korea?

Is there an embargo and if so what is the reason for it?

I haven't investigated North Korea, but here's what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba says:

"Cuba currently trades with almost every nation in the world, albeit with restrictions from the U.S. embargo. Trade with the United States is restricted to cash-only transactions for food and medicine. Any company that deals with Cuba risks problems dealing with the United States, so internationally operating companies may be forced to choose between Cuba and the United States, which is a far larger market. This extraterritorial U.S. legislation is considered highly controversial, and the U.S. embargo was condemned for the 13th time in 2004 by the General Assembly of the United Nations, by 179 countries (out of 183 voting). The main current trading partners of Cuba are: Venezuela, China, Spain, Canada and, the Netherlands."

More information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...go_against_Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba)
I'd be very interested to find out why the USA have a trade embargo with cuba.

I think that you need a very good reason not to trade with someone.

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

for the simple reason that cuba deviated from the mafia-infested, tourist haven it once was to try again and put the interests of the people ahead of multi-national corporations. cuba is like a run-away slave of the united states, so the animosity is understandable. not only that but the united states ran a campaign in the 60s where they tried to destroy cuba's sugar harvest. sounds like some haters to me. but to the united states' advantage, they hired anti-castro cuban mercenaries to do some of their dirty work abroad.

[theraven]

Originally posted by England Expects+Apr 28 2006, 01:05 AM--> (England Expects @ Apr 28 2006, 01:05 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 11:45 PM

Why do countries refuse to trade with Cuba and North Korea?

Is there an embargo and if so what is the reason for it?

I haven't investigated North Korea, but here's what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba says:

"Cuba currently trades with almost every nation in the world, albeit with restrictions from the U.S. embargo. Trade with the United States is restricted to cash-only transactions for food and medicine. Any company that deals with Cuba risks problems dealing with the United States, so internationally operating companies may be forced to choose between Cuba and the United States, which is a far larger market. This extraterritorial U.S. legislation is considered highly controversial, and the U.S. embargo was condemned for the 13th time in 2004 by the General Assembly of the United Nations, by 179 countries (out of 183 voting). The main current trading partners of Cuba are: Venezuela, China, Spain, Canada and, the Netherlands."

More information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...go_against_Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba)
I'd be very interested to find out why the USA have a trade embargo with cuba.

I think that you need a very good reason not to trade with someone. [/b]
because cuban exiles dislike castro and they are importatn consittnautiosn in their area.

[LSD]

I'm loathe to agree with "theraven" on anything, but on this issue he hit it right on the head.

The continued US embargo against Cuba is entirely a product of US electoral politics. If the Cuban exile population was not so influential and Florida was not a "battleground State", the embargo would have ended decades ago.

Remember, the US has absolutely no problem trading with "communist" or "socialist" states. Despite firery rhetoric, the US is still Venezuela's largest trading partner by far; and the size of the current trade relationship between the US and "communist" China is unparalleled in human history.

Capitalists will quite simply sell to anyone. Their sole concern, after all, is profit.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by England [email protected] 27 2006, 08:31 AM
What happens when a communist coutry exists in a world where every other country is a liberal democracy.

Can the communists trade with the rest?
So we've still only got one response to the question from the "comrades".

Are you all happy to go with Seongs silly little barter answer?

[ColinH]

Well, a hypothetical communist society would have no countries, at least not in the sense of a nation-state. Production for both profit or trade does not exist. Improvements in technology could allow for more automation in production and distribution, allowing for minimal work on the part of humans while satisfying our needs and wants. Keep in mind that this is the very distant future we're speculating about.

Oh, and North Korea, China and Cuba are not communist countries, despite what Lou Dobbs may tell people.

Thank you for your question.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 10:23 AM
Well, a hypothetical communist society would have no countries, at least not in the sense of a nation-state. Production for both profit or trade does not exist. Improvements in technology could allow for more automation in production and distribution, allowing for minimal work on the part of humans while satisfying our needs and wants. Keep in mind that this is the very distant future we're speculating about.
Right, so communism has to be a world-wide phenomenon(no countries) or an autarky(no production for trade).

[cyu]

importatn consittnautiosn

The first word must be "important", but I can't figure out what the second word is.



What happens when a communist coutry exists in a world where every other country is a liberal democracy.

Can the communists trade with the rest?
So we've still only got one response to the question from the "comrades".

Are you all happy to go with Seongs silly little barter answer?

Here's my post from another thread:

Let's say a revolution happens in your country and it goes communist / anarchist. The nation will still have a lot of foreign currencies in its treasury. What do you do with it? It's obvious that the rich are only rich because everybody else wants the little pieces of paper that they have. If nobody wanted it, they wouldn't be rich. But if your nation has a lot of foreign currency already, it would be a waste to simply burn it. All that money should be spent as soon as possible, buying up raw materials and equipment from around the world, from countries that still accept the currency. The goal is not to have paper wealth on your hands, but real wealth.

Once you spend all your foreign exchange, there will be more of it available in the market, leading to a fall in the value of that paper money (assuming your country had a lot of it). If you're lucky, this may then lead to panic spending in other nations, as they all want to get rid of the money before it loses all its value. This will help undermine capitalism around the world.

As far as trade after the revolution goes, I see no problem with getting goods you can't produce yourself from other countries. If you can't sell your own goods directly for the goods you need, then you'll have to accept foreign exchange for your sales. The idea is to spend that money as soon as possible, getting the things you need, instead of holding on to it. Treat it as if it has no real value, but get what you can get out of it while you still can.

The big problem with trading with capitalist nations is that the wealthy in those nations can offer more money in trade than everyone else. This will lead to the same problem you have in capitalist countries in which it results in a disproportionate number of people in your country having jobs that serve the wealthy in those capitalist nations. This would be a difficult problem to solve without promoting revolutions in those other nations as well (unless you want to cut off your nation from trade, which could be suicidal if your nation is small).

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 06:49 PM

importatn consittnautiosn

The first word must be "important", but I can't figure out what the second word is.



What happens when a communist coutry exists in a world where every other country is a liberal democracy.

Can the communists trade with the rest?
So we've still only got one response to the question from the "comrades".

Are you all happy to go with Seongs silly little barter answer?

Here's my post from another thread:

Let's say a revolution happens in your country and it goes communist / anarchist. The nation will still have a lot of foreign currencies in its treasury. What do you do with it? It's obvious that the rich are only rich because everybody else wants the little pieces of paper that they have.?

If nobody wanted it, they wouldn't be rich. But if your nation has a lot of foreign currency already, it would be a waste to simply burn it. All that money should be spent as soon as possible, buying up raw materials and equipment from around the world, from countries that still accept the currency. The goal is not to have paper wealth on your hands, but real wealth.

Once you spend all your foreign exchange, there will be more of it available in the market, leading to a fall in the value of that paper money (assuming your country had a lot of it). If you're lucky, this may then lead to panic spending in other nations, as they all want to get rid of the money before it loses all its value. This will help undermine capitalism around the world.

As far as trade after the revolution goes, I see no problem with getting goods you can't produce yourself from other countries. If you can't sell your own goods directly for the goods you need, then you'll have to accept foreign exchange for your sales. The idea is to spend that money as soon as possible, getting the things you need, instead of holding on to it. Treat it as if it has no real value, but get what you can get out of it while you still can.

The big problem with trading with capitalist nations is that the wealthy in those nations can offer more money in trade than everyone else. This will lead to the same problem you have in capitalist countries in which it results in a disproportionate number of people in your country having jobs that serve the wealthy in those capitalist nations. This would be a difficult problem to solve without promoting revolutions in those other nations as well (unless you want to cut off your nation from trade, which could be suicidal if your nation is small).
I can't figure out what that second word is either but I'll have a pint of what they're having.

Anyway, down to business.
I think you need to learn a lot about money and what it actually is, what it actually does.

I think it is amusing that you acknowledge small countries can't cut themselves off from trade but you don't think that it is suicidal for individuals to do the same.

[cyu]

I think you need to learn a lot about money and what it actually is, what it actually does.

So tell me what I've said about money that indicates that I still have much to learn. What are the myths and misconceptions I'm promoting?


I think it is amusing that you acknowledge small countries can't cut themselves off from trade but you don't think that it is suicidal for individuals to do the same.

Where did I say that individuals should cut themselves off from trade? You must be thinking of someone else.

[ColinH]

Originally posted by England Expects+Apr 28 2006, 06:42 AM--> (England Expects @ Apr 28 2006, 06:42 AM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 10:23 AM
Well, a hypothetical communist society would have no countries, at least not in the sense of a nation-state. Production for both profit or trade does not exist. Improvements in technology could allow for more automation in production and distribution, allowing for minimal work on the part of humans while satisfying our needs and wants. Keep in mind that this is the very distant future we're speculating about.
Right, so communism has to be a world-wide phenomenon(no countries) or an autarky(no production for trade). [/b]
As much a phenomenon as the global market is today.

[Hegemonicretribution]

As per usual there is a lot of talking past each other going on, there is limitted support for Cuba here, and hardly any (if any) for North Korea and the likes.

If it is these countries you are referring to, then the answer has more or less being given; they often trade if they are allowed to.

As for trade in communism, it really depends on the nature of how it is established. Marx claimed that a revolution would come first in the west, so it is possible that they already have the infastructure necessary to create "wealth." In these nations social policy will be more defining in the earlier stages than industrialisation (as happened in the USSR).

Of course there may be hostility towards this, even in the absence of an oppressive regime, as it would compromise the wealth of other rich nations. Whilst other nations are still in a transitory state, an isolated "communist country" really have to be considered socialist. Socialism relates to the transitory period, and this is essentiall the state that a nation is in whilst it still relies upon capitalist trade.

In your hypothetical situation, the answer would be yes they would trade, in fact it is likely that money will still be in use such a nation, and the only reason for not trading would be the "liberal democracies" being anything but.

[Seong]

And what is it with communists and swearing? Are your arguments that bad?
You assume that I swear because I'm a communist. Sorry to inform you but I swear because I'm Aussie and I like it. The fact that I'm communist has very little to do with my fondness for profanities.


Now if that's too complicated for 'Seong' I can always start drawing pictures.

You could, but they'd be really crap and no better than the insults you present as 'arguments.'

As some of the others have noted, Cuba cannot trade because of America's bullshit. As for North Korea, their economic policy up until the late 1980s consisted of a sort of self reliant subsistence. The policy has changed and they have actually begun reforming diplomatic ties with numerous nations. And by the way, America also placed sanctions on North Korean trade.

I said, I imagine international trade would exist in some form - bartering is just an example. It wasn't meant to be taken as gospel, so to speak. There are many far more learned comrades here who can beat you down with their knowledge, I just started the ball rolling.

If you don't like it, don't come here. Fuckface.

[Fistful of Steel]

In communism, nobody needs to trade pokemon cards because all the pokemon cards belong to everybody.

Well that'll learn me not to read the topic. With communism I think international "trade" (not trade as in capitalism, but the free exchange goods across borders) is necessary.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Fistful of [email protected] 30 2006, 03:40 AM
In communism, nobody needs to trade pokemon cards because all the pokemon cards belong to everybody.
what if two people want the same card?

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by theraven+Apr 30 2006, 03:41 AM--> (theraven @ Apr 30 2006, 03:41 AM)
Fistful of [email protected] 30 2006, 03:40 AM
In communism, nobody needs to trade pokemon cards because all the pokemon cards belong to everybody.
what if two people want the same card? [/b]
Then one person can have it some time and another person can have it at a different time. You know, like back in day-care when you wanted the ball but it eventually dawned on you (maybe with a little help) that sometimes you have to forgo your own desires for the greater good. Looking at it like this capitalism is basically the whiney, *****y child that wants to have the toy all the time.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Fistful of Steel+Apr 30 2006, 03:43 AM--> (Fistful of Steel @ Apr 30 2006, 03:43 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 03:41 AM

Fistful of [email protected] 30 2006, 03:40 AM
In communism, nobody needs to trade pokemon cards because all the pokemon cards belong to everybody.
what if two people want the same card?
Then one person can have it some time and another person can have it at a different time. You know, like back in day-care when you wanted the ball but it eventually dawned on you (maybe with a little help) that sometimes you have to forgo your own desires for the greater good. Looking at it like this capitalism is basically the whiney, *****y child that wants to have the toy all the time. [/b]
what if they need it at the same time? what if it is not something that can be easily shared?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 03:46 AM
what if they need it at the same time? what if it is not something that can be easily shared?
Well rather than allowing stockpiles of unused goods to develop such as the CAP creates, or allow surplusses to spoil so as to keep prices high, everything produced will be for consumption.

What is currently prduced could meet at least basic needs of everyone if it was distributed more equally.

When it comes to things such as food production, shelter building etc, if everyone is afforded the oppurtunity to work (does not happen in real terms now) then why should there be a problem meeting most needs?

When it comes to luxury goods it is a little different, this may well be fetishism, but I am not sure if it is these you are referring to...an example perhaps?

[theraven]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Apr 30 2006, 02:29 PM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Apr 30 2006, 02:29 PM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 03:46 AM
what if they need it at the same time? what if it is not something that can be easily shared?
Well rather than allowing stockpiles of unused goods to develop such as the CAP creates, or allow surplusses to spoil so as to keep prices high, everything produced will be for consumption.

What is currently prduced could meet at least basic needs of everyone if it was distributed more equally.

When it comes to things such as food production, shelter building etc, if everyone is afforded the oppurtunity to work (does not happen in real terms now) then why should there be a problem meeting most needs?

When it comes to luxury goods it is a little different, this may well be fetishism, but I am not sure if it is these you are referring to...an example perhaps? [/b]
now you have a host of new issues, who distrubes things? if you say "the people" how does this happen? what if in the midwest they grow a lot of grain, but in south africa they have a drought, how do the farmers in the midwest send the grain there w/o some sort of government (whcih would then cause the world to cease to be communist)