.
.
Subject: origin of anti-trade Communist position
.
.
.
.
.

There was a potentate, some aristocratic person sucking up all the 
production of the area that he could. The ruling classes would rule
by all methods available, ideological, mental, trade, direct force,
war. The people had little voice to resist except by armed revolution,
or to favor a less oppressive master if a choice presented itself.

Parts of economic existence consisted of organized state looting of the
peasantry (taxes, soil rent), ideological (religious) brainwashing to
get people to support a priesthood from gifts, war loot from armies,
distribution within families of crop and other proceeds, trade by
craftsmen.

Under these conditions the early industrial revolution occurs. The
masters of that change make their money from trade. These masters
behave themselves extremely badly, unfortunately their mutual
competition and the hunger for cheap prices by all classes of costumers
favors those producers who pay the people working there next to nothing.
The rest simply can't compete. People don't willingly work themselves to
death, but through scheming, playing the population off against a pool
of destitute and even more suffering unemployed, the people see two
choices: slavery or death, including death of the children.

All the while, the super wealthy industry barons and bankers parade
around how trade is a wonderful mechanism that makes everyone happy.

*

Against that backdrop, the people have no reason to believe in trade.
Therefore it seems natural that the opressed classes wanted to do away
both with power abuses (absolute democracy), and with trade (which was a
mechanism discredited by the industrial kapitalist classes.) Hence the
emerging of anti-trade pro-true-democracy using a plan-economic belief,
which wasn't an unusual accurence and isn't something that can't
somewhat function on small sovereign estates doing only med-eaval type
needs production which is obvious and simple.

Today this story is still ongoing: people are still being opressed in
corporations, the kapitalist abusive classes still sing the praises of
free trade, and the people are still motivated to hate it because of its
results. Some things did change though: the absolute plan-economy is
itself also discredited through the marxist historical failures, where
exploitation of people was merely the same, merely another form of
Tsarist direct class rule, possibly even more total because no trade by
craftsmen being allowed anymore causing state power to dominate more.
Another change is the globalization of the capitalist economy: where
before the poor workers where everywhere, now the transportation lines
go around the world. Factories stand in central China where the poor
exploited labor lives, well to do people live in western Europe. Almost
like what was once one city with all classes, is now spread out accross
an entire planet: out of sight, out of mind ?

But what is the essential problem, is it trade ? Or is it dictatorial
business relations inside a business. The exact same problem the
peasantry has with the barons and other looters of society, who can rob
from them legally because of their direct power, denying the peasantry
their vote on these essential matters.

Democracy is a good answer to power abuses, while trade without power
abuses is a good answer to equitable and fair production and distribution
of what has been produced: to all according to their /work/ (which
favors those competent and willing to work.)
-- 
http://www.socialism.nl