It could, but it doesn't have to. I think Graeber made this point really well in History of Everything (and less well in his other books) where he pointed out that goods have and do move around through mechanisms other than markets or planned economies.
He gives the following examples on pg. 23-24:
Dreams and Vision Quests: Pre-colonial Iroquoians would travel for days to get items they had seen in dreams, moving them from town to town over the years. In plains societies, the vision quest served a similar role.
Traveling healers: They would develop entourages of people they had cured who would divide their possessions among the troupe, allowing goods to travel across huge swaths of the American SE without markets.
Women's gambling: Gambling with shells, according to archaeologist Warren DeBoer, moved shells and other adornments halfway across the continent, again, without markets.
In Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value, he argues that many "currencies" were enmeshed in social relationships that extended beyond the transactional nature of the market. Wampum, for example, was never just money (until the colonial era) and the transfer of wampum could also create kinship ties or end feuds. Even markets weren't always markets.
To move past history and into the speculative, anarchist have laid out plans for centrally planned economies which are accountable to their memberships and also partable. Parecon is one particular example. I'm not laying this out as an endorsment of parecon, but as a speculative counter-example to federated communes operating on market logic.
As a more open ended speculation, I'd like to ask: What might the Soviet economy have looked like if the Soviets had stayed democratic and if the workers had remained armed?
It could, but it doesn't have to. I think Graeber made this point really well in History of Everything (and less well in his other books) where he pointed out that goods have and do move around through mechanisms other than markets or planned economies.
He gives the following examples on pg. 23-24:
Dreams and Vision Quests: Pre-colonial Iroquoians would travel for days to get items they had seen in dreams, moving them from town to town over the years. In plains societies, the vision quest served a similar role.
Traveling healers: They would develop entourages of people they had cured who would divide their possessions among the troupe, allowing goods to travel across huge swaths of the American SE without markets.
Women's gambling: Gambling with shells, according to archaeologist Warren DeBoer, moved shells and other adornments halfway across the continent, again, without markets.
In Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value, he argues that many "currencies" were enmeshed in social relationships that extended beyond the transactional nature of the market. Wampum, for example, was never just money (until the colonial era) and the transfer of wampum could also create kinship ties or end feuds. Even markets weren't always markets.
To move past history and into the speculative, anarchist have laid out plans for centrally planned economies which are accountable to their memberships and also partable. Parecon is one particular example. I'm not laying this out as an endorsment of parecon, but as a speculative counter-example to federated communes operating on market logic.
As a more open ended speculation, I'd like to ask: What might the Soviet economy have looked like if the Soviets had stayed democratic and if the workers had remained armed?