If?

There will still be "trade," but it will be oriented toward achieving the means of subsistence rather than the accumulation of capital.

Doesn't answer the question of who has the electronics factories, vehicle ones, the universities, the power plants, the rail plant manufacturing, the pharma, etc.

How likely is this scenario?  You're going to have a community which lives in an area, which is planning to ruin that area's ecosystem for the sake of extracting coal, and which will have neither coal nor livable land once the coal runs out?  Who's going to vote for that?

LOL. I guess you haven't ever spent any time in a mining community. It lasts a long time, it's a culture, and a lifestyle.  A century down the road your great great grandkids can worry or move.

What is the point of this sarcastic little dig?  Figure it out yourself, if you even care.

That you're presuming a socio-cultural mindset which doesn't exist and which I imagine even you don't think will come into being overnight. In the meantime those mining and logging and other communities will vote for what they want - more of the same. So that means you either accept that or you establish a centralized coercive apparatus. I'm curious whether you opt for the environmentally harmful but non coercive option, or the existence of a central government with the power of coercion.

Are communities in power now?

Nope, but I don't want them to be. Local interests need to be balanced against broader ones. That's why multiple levels of government are a good idea.