Sure. The exchange presupposes an ordered society in which to take place. If he means hierarchy then I don't see it implied. If I trade you 6 chickens for a pig neither one of us is in charge of the other.
Besides, I enjoy interacting with people when no one is out to get anything but the joy of good company. Commercial dealings are more of an unfortunate necessity and don't much hold my interest. Economic matters arise only after people have come together. I posit that the actual foundation of society is laughter with friends and hot chicks. Maybe Freddie wasn't getting any.
Jesus, Tapeworm, You're not supposed to actually challenge my shitposting. I prefer to keep things light around these parts…
However, what Engels was talking about was part of the 'materialist conception of history'. Every social order implies not just a rigid hierarchical one, but that every society, from nomadic and pastoral societies to contemporary industrialised ones, organises the activities needed for survival on an economic base. Whichever way societies solve these economic issues it would require a 'superstructure of thought', and that superstructure would reflect the foundations on which it was built. For example, no industrialised society could use nomadic conceptions of law and ordering, or vice versa. I won't bother to elaborate further as I was only babbling in the first place and I don't want to be responsible for a Getbig Red Scare, but needless to say I would agree that we could organise a non-hierarchical and positive-sum method of exchange. However, I would
not be willing to swap my pig. The joy of good company is indeed where I find meaning to life, and as I wouldn't be using the pig for food, I'd be relying on it to keep me entertained while I recovered from banging all the hot chicks.
