Gift Economy

[ontheyslay]

How exactly does a gift economy work? I know the basics of it, but am having difficulties understanding some of the intricacies associated with it.

How are resources distributed?

Who distributes them and who decides who gets what?

If one doesn't contribute (i.e. have a job) would they get anything?

In a large community, how would those that distribute resources know who works and who doesn't?

Thanks!

[Ned Flanders]

http://www.gift-economy.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

http://futurepositive.synearth.net/gift-economy/

Perhaps these will help. don´t know much about it myself.

[Nwoye]

How exactly does a gift economy work? I know the basics of it, but am having difficulties understanding some of the intricacies associated with it.

How are resources distributed?

Who distributes them and who decides who gets what?

If one doesn't contribute (i.e. have a job) would they get anything?

In a large community, how would those that distribute resources know who works and who doesn't?

Thanks!
A gift economy only exists after relative abundance exists for all important resources and goods. When this happens, rationing and market mechanisms (prices) will become obsolete, as the concepts of supply and demand are no longer relevant (supply widely exceeds demand). When this happens, people can have all of their material needs/wants fulfilled - they can just take whatever they want from society's stock of goods. This is the situation Marx was talking about when he said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

As for if people would work, remember that communities would be very decentralized and localized, and that if someone was using a tremendous amount of goods and not contributed to society in any way (maybe he just plays guitar hero and eats caviar all day), people would notice. I don't want to speculate on what form justice would take in such a society, because I don't know, but I don't see this as being a problem.

[JJM 777]

How exactly does a gift economy work? (...)
In a large community, how would those that distribute resources know who works and who doesn't?
As the word "gift" tells, everyone would receive everything as a gift, without anyone controlling if you have worked or not.

If I can say my personal opinion, I don't believe that a gift economy would work very good. It would probably lead to great inequality between people who bother to hoard a lot to themselves, and those who don't do so.

Rather, I support the idea of a centralized government planning effective and productive work for everyone, and equal distribution of the fruits of work. Not blindly as "gifts", but keeping record of who takes what to his personal use, using the average standard of living as the maximum limit how much a person is allowed to take services or commodities of his choice to his personal use.

[ckaihatsu]

(maybe he just plays guitar hero and eats caviar all day), people would notice.


I was kinda hoping you *wouldn't* notice....


8 D





If I can say my personal opinion, I don't believe that a gift economy would work very good. It would probably lead to great inequality between people who bother to hoard a lot to themselves, and those who don't do so.


The critical point here is whether those with less are being *exploited*, *oppressed*, or *discriminated against*. Could a person, any person, who has less in a gift economy simply go and *get more*, if they wanted to?

If there was a bottom-up communist administration *over* a gift economy then there would be some *regulation* instead of it being decentralized and unregulated. With such regulation hoarding would be disallowed, since that would effectively be the re-formation of pools of private capital -- only personal use would be allowed.





Rather, I support the idea of a centralized government planning effective and productive work for everyone, and equal distribution of the fruits of work.


I also support centralized government planning, but more for the administration of *goods and services*, rather than for the administration of people. I *don't* think that work roles should be artificially created or coerced simply for the sake of providing work roles. What matters is the *output* and *availability* of the material end *products* -- this would be determined by consumer usage patterns and formal requests -- and *this* grassroots demand would be the source of the creation of work roles.

Doing it any other way would be ass-backward because we'd be creating work without first assessing demand -- it would be a slippery slope down to a Stalinistic bureaucratic autocracy over people's work and lives.





Not blindly as "gifts", but keeping record of who takes what to his personal use, using the average standard of living as the maximum limit how much a person is allowed to take services or commodities of his choice to his personal use.


I have no problem with routine recordkeeping by *any* government -- what matters in the end is *policy* and *enforcement*.

I hope you're noticing that if the "average standard of living" is also the "maximum limit" then what you're saying is effectively that "every person *must* have the same standard of living" -- this is certainly *not* agreeable.

[rebelmouse]

How exactly does a gift economy work? I know the basics of it, but am having difficulties understanding some of the intricacies associated with it.
How are resources distributed?
Who distributes them and who decides who gets what?
If one doesn't contribute (i.e. have a job) would they get anything?
In a large community, how would those that distribute resources know who works and who doesn't?
Thanks!

-resources would be distributed equally and not in the sense that anyone take gifts how much he wants. how much he take, it must be equal with other people. you can't take 100 cars and other members of community has no car even he wants it. gift is not for misusing, so there would be some record who took what.
-community distribute it, or better said, people who take such job in community. community control at their meetings if mentioned people did it good or bad. there is no decision who gets what, because people have different needs, if you need something, who says that i need the same thing. exceptions are cases when someone is sick and medicament would go to person in need, not to anyone who wants it (people have today habit to gather tablets at home but it would not be necessary in anarchism).
-everybody get equal basic products for life, even people who don't work for community. out of range of basic, people have different needs, I like more chopper than car, so I don't give a shit for a car. it is just example. you take car, I take chopper. people must think on other (egoism is product of capitalism): it means I will not take car if I need chopper and I will leave car for other people. there can be record who take what so community can decide: everybody can take one tool for driving, so other people could get also. in that way no one can take 10 cars so other would not stay without it.
-in large communities would be the same: there is no importance who works, who doesn't work.

[ckaihatsu]

This is a *very* good, concise encapsulation, rebelmouse -- I agree with it almost entirely. I'd like to take issue with just one minor part:





-community distribute it, or better said, people who take such job in community. community control at their meetings if mentioned people did it good or bad. there is no decision who gets what, because people have different needs,


If there is truly an unconsumable *surplus* available to a community, then it *wouldn't matter* whether people *consumed* something well or not. But maybe you're talking about the *distribution* of the goods -- given today's *existing* technology for order-placing and order fulfillment over the web (or otherwise), I don't think that the *logistics* of distribution would be a problem.

Instead of flirting with moralism we should keep things firmly in the political realm -- either things are done according to satisfaction or else there's a *problem* -- problems are political issues and need to be resolved on a *material* basis....





Moralism is really a type of bourgeois decadence that is an indulgence in social control and petty rule-making based on the ownership of property -- it's an extension of the Golden Rule: 'Those with the gold make the rules.'

That's why it's better to concentrate on the greatest technologies at humanity's disposal -- factories, or the means of mass production -- since those are the source of society's material goods and services. As soon as we *constrict* ourselves to "community", "neighborhood", "city", "county", "state", "province", "country", or even continent, we're effectively defining our *own* limitations on the basis of arbitrary geographical boundaries. Really our interests are with the *working class*, *internationally* -- anything less is just self-limiting.

[Unregistered]

Marcel Mauss wrote an intriguing book regarding reciprocity titled "The Gift." Not entirely related to said topic, but regardless, such works cannot be ignored during consideration.

[JJM 777]

Out-of-topic:

Has anyone ever told that you use many *asterisks*, ckaihatsu?

[ckaihatsu]

Out-of-topic:

Has anyone ever told that you use many *asterisks*, ckaihatsu?


So what about it?

[rebelmouse]

ok, your community will not loose time about morality, but in any case, human needs should be satisfied.
there should be and exchange with other communities. it means there would be overproduction with aim to exchange goods with others. climate conditions limit communities, more or less, it depend what technology people developed to fight "climate limitations". but I think exchange with other communities would have to exist, it means overproduction also. how that exchange would function, it depends from character of community, but if we follow gift economy, other communities should get as a gift what they asked in advance. so, it would be like exchanging of gifts, just without obligation to give something in the same value than in the sense of satisfaction of random needs. but I think because of ego, people would first of all satisfy needs of own community.