trading in Communism

[Ultra-Violence]

For example when we achive communsim and i wanted to trade rice for some cement or soemting of that sort.... would that be O.k or no? just wondering?

[Cult of Reason]

Why would you need to?

[MrDoom]

Perhaps a better way to pose this question would be: "How will goods be distributed to the masses in a Communist society?".

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 3 2006, 03:16 PM
For example when we achive communsim and i wanted to trade rice for some cement or soemting of that sort.... would that be O.k or no? just wondering?
You wouldnt go to the cement factory with a bag of rice. If you worked with a farming collective your assembly would decide what to do with the goods based on the needs of the community. For example, you would probably give the rice to a food distribution center which would then distribute it to centers in the community for people to get.

If you personally needed some "cement" you could just go to the former "home depot" or whatever it will be called and pick some up. If your workers collective needed a significant ammount for a building project, it would be appropriated by the community and workers assemblies if it is approved.

[apathy maybe]

A big problem I have with communism is the 'outlawing' of trade. Yes it is unnecessary as people can just go to the local depot and get what they need (insert thing about appropriate amount of work or other restriction if you want). But, what happens if someone wants to trade some unique item with somebody else’s unique item? Many folks around here do not like it.

Being an 'adjective-free anarchist' I am not going to say that any sort of anarchism is the best one (I will say that some sorts are worse, primitivism doesn't work for example). I think that if people do not want to join the commune they should not have to. They could then trade with the commune or members of the commune for items that they cannot or do not produce.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 4 2006, 07:11 AM
A big problem I have with communism is the 'outlawing' of trade. Yes it is unnecessary as people can just go to the local depot and get what they need (insert thing about appropriate amount of work or other restriction if you want). But, what happens if someone wants to trade some unique item with somebody else’s unique item? Many folks around here do not like it.

Being an 'adjective-free anarchist' I am not going to say that any sort of anarchism is the best one (I will say that some sorts are worse, primitivism doesn't work for example). I think that if people do not want to join the commune they should not have to. They could then trade with the commune or members of the commune for items that they cannot or do not produce.
What are 'unique items'?

With decentralization in the methods of production hardly anything would be significantly 'unique', things with useful qualities would be made, and without any kind of value outside of use-value, there would be no reason to 'trade' anything if everyone can get whatever they need or want from a local depot.

[dannie]

a pretty rare 1960's album for example

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:11 AM
a pretty rare 1960's album for example
Something like that could easily be scanned and reproduced.

[apathy maybe]

A unique item might be a rare natural object that was desired by people. Actually unique is bad terminology. Rare or unique is better. Something produced by an individual, a painting, a sculpture, a heirloom. Some items that cannot be reproduced by machines, or if they can be, the quality is not as good.

An example might be diamonds. While industrial diamonds are used all the time, the real thing is still desired by certain individuals and would be into the future by some. Antiques are also desired for some reason, first edition books are another example.

All these things have a 'uniqueness' about them that cannot be reproduced. Many of them, while not all, are produced by the hard labour of an individual (e.g. sculpture, paintings and other art as well as other things) and as I interpret socialism, that labour is for the individual to decide what to do with.

[Seong]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:13 AM
With decentralization in the methods of production hardly anything would be significantly 'unique', things with useful qualities would be made, and without any kind of value outside of use-value, there would be no reason to 'trade' anything if everyone can get whatever they need or want from a local depot.

Even in a decentralized economy not everything will be mass produced. As Apathy Maybe noted there will be comrades whose primary contribution to society may be in the form of original artistic products. If that is the best way that individual can give according to their ability why wouldn't there be anything 'significantly unique?' In my opinion, individuals should be allowed to trade individual items with each other as they wish.

I dunno about you guys, but I'll not support a revolution that bans the independent production and trade of tea cosies. :P

[Led Zeppelin]

You don't have to trade in Communism, because you can already have anything you need:


Originally posted by Lenin
The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. "The narrow horizon of bourgeois law", which compels one to calculate with the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has not worked half an hour more than anybody else--this narrow horizon will then be left behind. There will then be no need for society, in distributing the products, to regulate the quantity to be received by each; each will take freely "according to his needs".

From the bourgeois point of view, it is easy to declare that such a social order is "sheer utopia" and to sneer at the socialists for promising everyone the right to receive from society, without any control over the labor of the individual citizen, any quantity of truffles, cars, pianos, etc. Even to this day, most bourgeois “savants” confine themselves to sneering in this way, thereby betraying both their ignorance and their selfish defence of capitalism.

[LSD]

A unique item might be a rare natural object that was desired by people.

Such objects would be held in common trust for general public usage.

Since private property would not exist, no one would "own" these object, let alone be able to "trade" in them.


An example might be diamonds. While industrial diamonds are used all the time, the real thing is still desired by certain individuals and would be into the future by some.

Actually, diamonds are fairly easy to produce. Artifical fabrication is already virtually perfected and within a few years will be feasibly on a mass scale.

Not to mention that natural diamonds are already incredibly common. It's only because of artificial market manipulation that the capitalists have managed to sell the myth of a diamond "scarcity".


As Apathy Maybe noted there will be comrades whose primary contribution to society may be in the form of original artistic products.

Such artistic contributions, however, would be reproduced for the general consumption of the entire community.

The original may have some value in and of itself, especially for art connoisseurs, but since the artist would not be compelled to "sell" his creation, he would almost certainly retain the original and distribute the -- flawless -- reproduction.

To borrow a bourgeois parlance, it is the "intellectual property" that is of value fundamentally, not the physical object itself.

Whether it be a song, a painting, or a book; the creation is in the art not the individual molecules.

Accordingly, anyone who wished a copy of the product would be able to aquire one; no "trading" required.


Antiques are also desired for some reason, first edition books are another example.

Historical antiques of any value would be kept in public museums, possible on loan for anyone who wished to enjoy them.

The same goes for first edition books or any other historical/archeological object.

In terms of "heirlooms" or other personal objects, the person to whom it has signficance will certainly be able to keep it. If there is a particularly wide demand for access to the item in question, however, it may become nescessary to socialize it.

There is no "right" to property is communism. There is merely a right to usage and that right is universal.

An individual cannot have "special liscence" to a, very hypothetical, "unique" or "rare" object merely because he happens to have something to "trade" or because he's lucky enough to find someone willing to enter into said "trade".

Communism is about ending such absurdisms of capitalism!


s I interpret socialism, that labour is for the individual to decide what to do with.

The labour is his to control, not the product of that labour.

A farmer in a communist society decides when and for how long he works his fields, but he is not free to designate that "only white people" can eat the food he grows.

That food is for the entire community. "Ownership" of product is a relic of capitalist relations and will have no place in a communist society.

[anomaly]

Sometimes trading little shit might be easier than going to pick it up.

"I'll trade you some regular bubble gum for your juicy fruit"

You know, shit like that.

However, barter in its entirety will probably be looked upon sorely by the community, and selling goods (or otherwise using a market for distribution) will probably be looked upon the same way we look at chattel slavery in the '1st world'. It will just be out of the question.