Even the Soviet Union using rationing tokens of some kind to mediate the exchange of scarce items, and was totally unable to prevent a thriving black market in consumer goods, just as most countries today are totally unable to prevent the black market in recreational drugs.

There are art movements that encourage people to make and share art through participation not publication or promotion (eg see Hakim Bey’s writing on ‘immediatism’), and political movements like the situationists (and certain flavours of anarchists) who believe that in the ideal society art (and everything) would be shared free of charge. However, in all the cases I’m aware of, they see this as coming about through the majority of people voluntarily changing the social agreements about how art and exchange work, rather than any kind of ban being imposed on currency, markets, and trade.

Crosbie Fitch said 1424 days ago :

It’s really the other way around.

Society is naturally at liberty to share cultural and technological knowledge, and to exchange labour for whatever the market will bear, e.g. to write a song for money.

So it is not society that makes the rules against this natural order, but government, and it does so with the pretence that it is by the will of the people, or by their consent, that the people surrender their liberty to share and build upon their own culture, that the state and its corporations may profit from the consequent monopoly rents they can exact (selling people that which they were born with, their liberty, back to them piecemeal – qv ‘license’).

It is copyright and patent that are ‘black’. Thus a market that ignores or lacks such state monopolies is a free market, not a black market.