>The reason I brought up the last several thousand years is that money
>became necessary as soon as people weren't feeding and clothing their
>immediate selves - i.e., as soon as any kind of trade was introduced.
>Money arises in exchange, as they say. And though there's a diff
>between the capitalist commodity and other kinds, it's very very hard
>to imagine how you can have some kind of trade without money. What
>moneyless social relations involving complex trade can you imagine?
You have to imagine an economy that isn't based on markets and trading, where goods and services are produced freely, because people need them and used freely. It isn't unimaginable, in fact it even occurs quite frequently within our capitalist economy. In those necessary spheres of need which are don't have the capacity to generate a profit. And even some spheres where there is the potential for profit, but where it is becoming inescapably obvious that markets are a hindrance. People freely give their labour in all kinds of voluntary activities.
This kind of activity is difficult to sustain in the context of a market economy. Simply because giving freely is subject to exploitation. And people with unmet needs must of necessity be selfish. Just as it would be difficult for anyone to try to sell something in a society where the same things are given freely. But the very fact that in our own society, people freely organise themselves to fill social needs without expecting anything in exchange, demonstrates that this is the natural order of things.
Trade is, contrary to your claim, unnatural. It arises because of scarcity. it can only continue in circumstances of scarcity and these days the scarcity must often be artificially maintained in order to prop up the market economy. Artificial scarcity is the real story of the modern capitalist economy.
Its hard to imagine how it can be kept up indefinitely, though we see frantic efforts to do so. Which of course result in enormous misery. Let me turn your question around then, what kind of a market economy can you imagine that DOESN'T require a degree of poverty to continue to exist?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas