>>2400835going to pretend this obviously a bad faith question.
no, no society is known to have used barter as its primary model of supplementing production. marx, as well as the political economists and historians he was drawing from, were wrong about that, largely due to limited and incorrect information about ancient and prehistoric society.
prehistoric societies used a variety of models. as far as we can know from archaeological and anthropological evidence, exchange of use value usually took a "ritualized" form: mutual but non-simultaneous exchange of gifts, holding of feasts, marriage compacts & adoption as means of extending obligations to others, as well as barter. a network of varied obligations in accordance with a web of familial and inter-familial relations, supplemented by simple barter when necessary. barter as its normally concieved, as simply a primitive form of commodity production in which you (intentionally or otherwise) produce a surplus and use that surplus to acquire necessary good, was very rarely a central part of primitive economy and was more of a circumstantial stopgap. there are exceptions, but it was much more common e.g. for a culture to deplete their surplus all at once in a feast or grand sacrifice as a display of prosperity & influence to their own group and their neighbors, which would tighten the bonds of obligation they primarily relied on. that is, the group down the river invites us to their glorious feasts and arranges marriages with us, if they have had a bad hunting season we'll bring them some extra to maintain that bond, with the knowledge it will be reciprocated and also boost our credibility among other groups. in most cases by far, intentionally producing a surplus for the purpose of exchange didnt make sense, because people didnt want to do that, the basic necessities of life and culture could be crafted by your own group and no one wanted to work extra hours in the day to produce a bunch of extra arrowheads and pots on the off chance that maybe someone else would have a shortage of those and surplus of something else and want to make an equal exchange. thats not to say it never happened, it certainly did, but it was a circumstantial occurence that served as an exceptional supplement to the standard methods of exchange.
which is to say, no, socialism is not aiming for primitive barter, not least of all because primitive barter was never (or at least very rarely) the foundation of primitive economics. the "aim" is that exchange for need is done through rational planning of need that takes into account respective capacities for production and degree of mutual dependence. primitive economies and capitalism also accomplish this, but the mechanism through which they accomplish it (ritual, family bonds; the market) are prone to contradictions that inevitably lead to severe conflicts and lack. the thesis of socialist economics is that rational planning done by the people responsible for production could itself be the mechanism of exchange, so as to minimize conflicts and lack