Is exchange in of itself something to be opposed under communism?

[SuchianFrog735]

I want to say first that I'm highly skeptical of formulations that try to preserve the market beyond capitalism, whether it be mutualism, market anarchism, or market socialism. These seem to appeal to a long history where "the market has existed for a long time" and that it's natural part of human relations.

However, I do admit I'm somewhat confused on the topic in terms of how people critique the market and whether exchange itself is critiqued. Some critiques draw a distinction between barter and a market, or exchanging something and a market.

One example I've heard used is that "exchanging a shovel with another object is fine, but having an explicit system weighing the importance of shovels and cows for instance makes it a market". Or the image of sharing your garden with your neighbor while he gives you something else. Essentially just sharing resources.

While another argument is that exchange in of itself is something that will gradually be eliminated since having abundance will not require exchange in the first place.

[ComradeAllende]

From my experience in communist literature, "exchange" in-and-of-itself isn't subject to much critique. Trading goods between friends, family members, or coworkers isn't that big a deal; its part of normal human interactions.

"Markets", on the other hand, tend to have a fixed set of rules and regulations designed to define and enforce contracts, admit buyers and sellers, and record transactions, among other things. If I were to go to my friend and exchange baseball cards, we wouldn't be engaging in a "market" practice. But if I were to go online on Craigslist or Amazon and sell/trade my baseball cards, I'd be participating in a market process (due to the legal and procedural processes inherent within the transaction).

Personally, I see a place for markets in the transition phase to a communist society, mainly for consumer goods. Of course, this would only be a temporary phase, and only worker's cooperatives or socially-owned firms would be allowed to participate, but it would still be a step away from market capitalism and towards a market-less society.

[Thirsty Crow]

From my experience in communist literature, "exchange" in-and-of-itself isn't subject to much critique. Trading goods between friends, family members, or coworkers isn't that big a deal; its part of normal human interactions.

One thing to note is that such exchange is a product of specific circumstances of scarcity. That's why exchange is indeed subjected (or should be) to "critique", but the practical side of it is that the critique can only proceed with the general development of human production under communist social relations (and that development itself is aimed at effective abolition of conditions of scarcity).

On a macroeconomic/logistics level, the cooperation between different regions of the world also isn't something that should take the form of exchange.

[ckaihatsu]

One example I've heard used is that "exchanging a shovel with another object is fine, but having an explicit system weighing the importance of shovels and cows for instance makes it a market". Or the image of sharing your garden with your neighbor while he gives you something else.

Yeah, this is a *very* slippery-slope -- the argumentation, as from libertarians / liberals, always takes on a folksy veneer, as though neighbors would just be talking over the fence, always working things out on a casual, mutually beneficial basis.

But will every paired transaction always be so *equitable* -- ? What if the number of shovels on hand doesn't quite match-up to the implicit exchange value of a cow -- ? Then an 'explicit system weighing the [relative] importance [exchange value] of shovels and cows' *will* be objectively required, and will have to encompass exchange rates for many *other* items as well, pretty-much *all* goods in the economy.

Perhaps some kind of *credit* might be extended, for 'future' shovels to make up the difference for the cow that is exchanged in good-faith today -- then a system of implicit *credit* would be required, perhaps requiring 'interest' and 'amortization rates', etc., and then we're back to full-blown currency, credit, debt, and banking -- *capitalism*, in other words.

(Ditto for 'garden plots vs. whatever'.)

Essentially just sharing resources.

There's a fundamental difference, though, between 'exchange' and 'sharing' -- if we acknowledge that we are all born into the world biologically without any *inherent*, special claims to this-or-that parcel of land, or whatever, then we may be seen as inherently 'equal' regarding the earth and its bounties. In this situation -- basically primitive communism -- *everything* could be 'shared' since there's no need for proprietary claims to particular 'ownership'.

I'll also add in the monkey-wrench of *labor*, which is invariably *ignored* in these kinds of libertarian lines of argumentation that only deal with 'goods' *after* they've been produced -- by magical Santa's elves, presumably.

So -- how would intangible labor *efforts* be valued in the mix with already-existing goods -- ? Would the value of 'gardening' *fluctuate* day-to-day, and how might it be valuated side-by-side with 'shovels', for the exchange of a 'cow' -- ?

While another argument is that exchange in of itself is something that will gradually be eliminated since having abundance will not require exchange in the first place.

Yes -- precisely. (We can keep in mind that the watchword for communism is free-access and direct-distribution.)

If I were to go to my friend and exchange baseball cards, we wouldn't be engaging in a "market" practice.

This is the slippery-slope again since the example is so miniscule and isolated as to be *unrealistic*. (What if others in the larger social network want to exchange baseball cards as well, etc. -- ?)

One thing to note is that such exchange is a product of specific circumstances of scarcity. That's why exchange is indeed subjected (or should be) to "critique", but the practical side of it is that the critique can only proceed with the general development of human production under communist social relations (and that development itself is aimed at effective abolition of conditions of scarcity).

Yes.

On a macroeconomic/logistics level, the cooperation between different regions of the world also isn't something that should take the form of exchange.

Yes, exactly -- good point (including the use of *scale*).