MARKET PRICES Every African today will declare that prices in the village markets are generally not determined or fixed by the village chief or king. This is a fact that has been true for centuries and must be stated emphatically since many modern African governments are ignorant of it. Prices on indigenous markets traditionally have been influenced by several factors: the forces of supply and demand, scarcity, time of day, status of the consumer, relation with the seller, quality of the product, its degree of necessity, bargaining skills and competition. In general, prices are determined by the normal forces of supply and demand, the other factors merely shave off or add a few pennies so that two different consumers do not pay exactly the same price. Thus price -- charging different prices to different customers for the same product -- exists in indigenous African markets. Ian Vansina (1962) also found that prices on Kuba markets in Zaire, "prices in Kuba is that they behave in exactly the same way as prices do in European markets. The price is set by the relation of supply and demand. When shrimps first appear on the market, they fetch a high price. Later on, the price falls" (235). On the Konso markets of southern Ethiopia, Kluckhorn (1962) discovered that, "supply and demand was the basic adjustment mechanism for prices" (86). The Role of Government in the Indigenous Economy Indigenous African economies were based on agriculture, pastoralism, markets, and trade. Both the rulers and the natives appreciated the importance of these activities. Indigenous governments created the necessary conditions for their subjects to conduct their activities. Even with agriculture, the tribal government did not interfere or dictate what crops the peasants should raise. The peasants decided what to cultivate. The role of the chief or kings in agriculture was to ensure that access to land was not denied to anyone, even strangers. Supervision or regulation of access did not constitute control over production. With trade, the historical evidence does not suggest government interferences. It would hardly make sense for the chiefs prevent their own subjects from engaging in trade. Traders were free enterprisers, taking the risks themselves. As Kwame Y. Daaku (1971) observed: Those who so desired... http://www2.gsu.edu/~finjws/heritag3.htm
I wanted to post this info because I've noticed how many who promote Marxism/Communism seem to do so based on the idea that communism is closer or related to many traditional indigenous cultures. But as you can see,the economic activity of some traditional markets,in this case Africa, was actually closer to how a market economy works more so than what Marxist governments tried. This is one reason Marxism failed in Africa and other countries because it was actually alien to how the traditional people operated when it came to trade. Maybe this just goes to show that the market approach to economic activity is the more natural way for most.
Marxism can't fail. Marxism is a world outlook, not a system of government or an economic system. You don't know what you are talking about. Socialism and Communism are economic systems with corresponding governments, yet neither have been achieved, because capitalism is not yet complete. It would make sense for socialism and communism to be further from indigenous economies because they are (in theory) more advanced and futher away chronologically from indigenous economies, but the parallel to indigenous economies that people speak does exist. It is that socialism includes a green/buddhist economics element of happiness which capitalism doesn't. Socialism, as well as primitive or pre-capitalist economies, are more than rigid utilitarian economies.
See that's another problem I see with Socialist and Marxist. Too many of you resort to over philosophisizing as a way to explain why Marxism failed.
