Does communism/anarchism necessitate a gift economy?

[Arakir]

Is a gift economy required in order to have an anarchist or communist society? Can anarchist/communist societies have things such as labor vouchers? If anarchism/communism requires a gift economy, how can a gift economy be constructed?

[bropasaran]

If I undertand your question, basically, there are the "optimists" and the "pessimists", both claiming they are realists. The "optimist" say that free access and gift economy are going to do just fine, and they accuse the "pessimists" of having a capitalist mindset. The "pessimists" call the "optimists" utopian and say that things would fall apart if people would try and run an integrated economy spontaneously, with everyone being given products as gifts, that is, everyone having free access to everything in the economy.

The only established tendency, that I know of, that is purely "optimist" is "world socialism". Other tendencies either don't have a clear opinion on this, or are "pessimist". One of those is anarcho-collectivism of Bakunin, which answers your question about vouchers, being that they are advocated there, and "parecon" and "inclusive democracy" are modern reincarnations of that. Makhno was somewhat adamant abour there being clear rules about people consuming but not producing. Even Kropotkin, who was the biggest optimist around was for using some mechanisms that ensure that people who can do contribute.

Personally, I'm a "pessimist" here, based on looking into various intentional communities, or mini-communes, or "communes" as they are improperly called. Basically, all the hippie, spontaneous order, mini-communes went bust, and the only ones that continue to this day are the ones that have rules and/or regulations about work quotas and consumption limits; so, I don't support free access/ gift economy for people who are able to work.

[tuwix]

Is a gift economy required in order to have an anarchist or communist society?


There is many streams of anarchism and two major meaning of communism. I won't loose a time to describe all forms of anarchism and focus about two meaning of communism.
Communism according to Marx, is two phase socio-economic system in which the second phase is called communism by anarchists and Leninists. In the first phase there are money earned by work the it is difficult to say that teher is gift economy. In the second phase, there is no money and then it could be called a gift economy.



Can anarchist/communist societies have things such as labor vouchers?


Yes, but only int the first phase. The second phase exludes any equivalents of money.



If anarchism/communism requires a gift economy, how can a gift economy be constructed?

By technological development, putting simply. Technological growth causes more and more products for less and less price and for that is needed less and less job. And in one day of future less than 5% of people will be needed to work but there will be abundance of goods. Then money will become obsolete.

[Sea]

To be clear, these "two phases" are just arbitrary points in a continuous and fluid environment. It is not as if we have plan that goes revolution--->phase1--->phase2, it's more like revolution--------->communism and the different "phases" are points in that progress that have certain defining features.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Communism according to Marx, is two phase socio-economic system in which the second phase is called communism by anarchists and Leninists. In the first phase there are money earned by work the it is difficult to say that teher is gift economy. In the second phase, there is no money and then it could be called a gift economy...

I don't think this true at all.

Marx referred to 'the first phase' and 'a higher phase', meaning that it's unclear whether there are any intermediate phases. The 'first phase' is not a money economy; Marx suggested that there might be labour vouchers, as this is a phase when class society has been transcended but production hasn't yet been revolutionised to the point where we have a free-access society. In Marx's day, this might because industrialisation might need to be increased; now, it might be because we're repairing the planet after the environmental, and probably military, degredation of moribund capitalism.

Either way - the productive forces might not be up to the job to start with so we might not have a society of abundance. Therefore some form of rationing might be necessary; Marx proposed 'rationing by work' (labour-time vouchers) as an alternative to 'rationing by price' (money). I think in the end 'rationing by need' is more sensible than either system, and I' think that the majority of Marxists wouldn't favour labour-time vouchers now.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't think this true at all.

Marx referred to 'the first phase' and 'a higher phase', meaning that it's unclear whether there are any intermediate phases. The 'first phase' is not a money economy; Marx suggested that there might be labour vouchers, as this is a phase when class society has been transcended but production hasn't yet been revolutionised to the point where we have a free-access society. In Marx's day, this might because industrialisation might need to be increased; now, it might be because we're repairing the planet after the environmental, and probably military, degredation of moribund capitalism.

Either way - the productive forces might not be up to the job to start with so we might not have a society of abundance. Therefore some form of rationing might be necessary; Marx proposed 'rationing by work' (labour-time vouchers) as an alternative to 'rationing by price' (money). I think in the end 'rationing by need' is more sensible than either system, and I' think that the majority of Marxists wouldn't favour labour-time vouchers now.


Being in such a money- and economics-focused societal world I think it's easy to overlook any given existing *social paradigm* -- the part that, for example, conservatives erroneously refer to today as 'cultural Marxism'.

I mean to say that there *would* be a kind of 'cultural Marxism' during and after a worldwide revolution, to replace whatever you (the reader) consider to be the *current* cultural paradigm of the day. It's not that such would have to be heavy-handed, but, rather, the prevailing liberated workforce would task itself to certain priorities -- like BB's mentioning of thorough environmental clean-up and absolute demilitarization -- and those broad-based initiatives would form the existing cultural 'world-feel' that the world's population would experience as the norm of social reality.

This social reality would have a propagating *influence* on everyone, as well, as such does for any given historical moment -- an ethos that breaks with the universal drive for private accumulation would free up much human will and effort for more cooperative-type projects, and so on. In this way we could easily conceive of an emergent, liberated-labor-led gift economy to displace today's hyper-subdivided economic status quo.

[Crabbensmasher]

Personally, I'm a "pessimist" here, based on looking into various intentional communities, or mini-communes, or "communes" as they are improperly called. Basically, all the hippie, spontaneous order, mini-communes went bust, and the only ones that continue to this day are the ones that have rules and/or regulations about work quotas and consumption limits; so, I don't support free access/ gift economy for people who are able to work.

Well you can't expect people to transition directly from a free-market, competitive capitalist system to one of abundance. Everyone is socialized into a capitalist framework. Our lives involve constant restrictions on the goods we can buy. Therefore, we hoard, save, steal, try and "cheat the system". We try and secure the most we can for the smallest price. In short, this competition is highly individualistic. The 'system' so to speak, has no remorse for you; if you can't afford something, you are turned away. Conversely, you have no remorse for the system. You take opportunities when they come to you. You've got to fight for things.

Now suddenly, if you're put into a room with as many goods as you would ever want, what are you going to do? Yes, you're going to try and grab everything you see.

People don't understand the implications of this. Under Capitalism, a worker is completely alienated from what he produces. Therefore, if he's put into a room filled with abundance, he doesn't realize the implications of taking everything. In reality, it hurts the community. Because of his alienation, he cannot understand this.

The solution to this, like the problem, is purely sociological. It requires gradual acclimatization. As Marx recognized, this occurs in phases. People can not be re-socialized overnight.

Like usual, it boils down to the whole 'human nature' debate. Labeling humanity as greedy under the present circumstances is absolutely ludicrous. This greed is largely caused by the competitive environment we're brought up under.

Of course, I think it will be a long time before we can 'isolate' human nature (Or whatever you want to call it), or it might be an impossible task in itself. There are millions of environmental factors that influence people. It's impossible to know what humans are like, because in reality, environment affects us all, and in different ways. Ugh, I'm going to stop now. It's just nature vs nurture.

[AmilcarCabral]

From a realistic point of view and from the present barbaric behaviour of most human in this world, even leftist humans who because of their egocentrism and because they haven't evolved into an altruist behaviour pattern, I think that in the prior stage of anarchist-communist which is the workers-dictatorship. In that stage, the marxist philosophers, scientists and intellectuals will have to work hard at pushing for a physiological, mental evolution (because mind and body are connected) of all humans in the countries where capitalism has been overthrown and have a workers-dictatorship in place.

In that stage there has be a program to help humans evolve toward altruist strong humans. Who will be so strong and with such a high self-esteem that they wouldn't need to lie, to steal and to cheat, because all unchecked appetites, inferiority complex, envy, personality disorders, will be destroyed in the evolution process toward altruist humans.

So I think that is very necessary for an anarchist-communist system without money work. Where there would be supermarkets just like Wal Marts, Sears and Target stores, but without cashiers, where people would walk into the store with a cart, and take all their items that they need for their personal needs.

This link of this website talks about that evolution toward stronger people http://biopsychiatry.com/



If I undertand your question, basically, there are the "optimists" and the "pessimists", both claiming they are realists. The "optimist" say that free access and gift economy are going to do just fine, and they accuse the "pessimists" of having a capitalist mindset. The "pessimists" call the "optimists" utopian and say that things would fall apart if people would try and run an integrated economy spontaneously, with everyone being given products as gifts, that is, everyone having free access to everything in the economy.

The only established tendency, that I know of, that is purely "optimist" is "world socialism". Other tendencies either don't have a clear opinion on this, or are "pessimist". One of those is anarcho-collectivism of Bakunin, which answers your question about vouchers, being that they are advocated there, and "parecon" and "inclusive democracy" are modern reincarnations of that. Makhno was somewhat adamant abour there being clear rules about people consuming but not producing. Even Kropotkin, who was the biggest optimist around was for using some mechanisms that ensure that people who can do contribute.

Personally, I'm a "pessimist" here, based on looking into various intentional communities, or mini-communes, or "communes" as they are improperly called. Basically, all the hippie, spontaneous order, mini-communes went bust, and the only ones that continue to this day are the ones that have rules and/or regulations about work quotas and consumption limits; so, I don't support free access/ gift economy for people who are able to work.

[ckaihatsu]

Personally, I'm a "pessimist" here, based on looking into various intentional communities, or mini-communes, or "communes" as they are improperly called. Basically, all the hippie, spontaneous order, mini-communes went bust, and the only ones that continue to this day are the ones that have rules and/or regulations about work quotas and consumption limits; so, I don't support free access/ gift economy for people who are able to work.





From a realistic point of view and from the present barbaric behaviour of most human in this world, even leftist humans who because of their egocentrism and because they haven't evolved into an altruist behaviour pattern, I think that in the prior stage of anarchist-communist which is the workers-dictatorship. In that stage, the marxist philosophers, scientists and intellectuals will have to work hard at pushing for a physiological, mental evolution (because mind and body are connected) of all humans in the countries where capitalism has been overthrown and have a workers-dictatorship in place.

In that stage there has be a program to help humans evolve toward altruist strong humans. Who will be so strong and with such a high self-esteem that they wouldn't need to lie, to steal and to cheat, because all unchecked appetites, inferiority complex, envy, personality disorders, will be destroyed in the evolution process toward altruist humans.

So I think that is very necessary for an anarchist-communist system without money work. Where there would be supermarkets just like Wal Marts, Sears and Target stores, but without cashiers, where people would walk into the store with a cart, and take all their items that they need for their personal needs.

This link of this website talks about that evolution toward stronger people http://biopsychiatry.com/


*Both* of these two authors' points are hopelessly *moralist* -- what moralistic arguments could one possibly make, once the people / workers of the world get decisively fed-up with capitalism, have a revolution, and are suddenly in control of the world's production, producing for any and all localities' needs -- ?

(I'll remind the reader that if you can't even consider this as a possibility at all then you're definitely not a revolutionary leftist.)

I mean to say that petty moralistic concerns would be *swamped* by any proletarian-controlled production that basically goes all-out, in a revolutionary fervor to prove the capitalists wrong by actually producing for the people's needs. I just can't see a situation where the workers-in-power would then, without external pressures, institute a Stalinist type of rationing using moralistic rationales.

And I'm surprised to hear the 'human moral nature' argument, too, when all that would be required for consistency would be the *slightest* of guidelines for the sound functioning of a mass-liberated mass production.

We don't have the luxury of forgetting or ignoring that the status quo doesn't benefit us / the 99% whatsoever, and that we have a common *material interest* in socialist revolution -- any analysis at any smaller scales is just myopic and nothing more.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

A "gift economy" implies an individual, or at least small-scale, ritualized exchange of goods with expectations of reciprocity. Communism, by contrast, could be called a free-access economy: in the higher phases every member of society will have access to all of the social product.

[ckaihatsu]

A "gift economy" implies an individual, or at least small-scale, ritualized exchange of goods with expectations of reciprocity.


Or....





Copyleft vs copyright: the gift of 'free' speech

Main article: Copyleft

Engineers, scientists and software developers have created open-source software projects such as the Linux kernel and the GNU operating system. They are prototypical examples for the gift economy's prominence in the technology sector and its active role in instating the use of permissive free software and copyleft licenses, which allow free reuse of software and knowledge. Other examples include: file-sharing, the commons, open access.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy#Copyleft_vs_copyright:_the_gift_of_.2 7free.27_speech





Communism, by contrast, could be called a free-access economy: in the higher phases every member of society will have access to all of the social product.


Do you think the semantic distinction is significant -- ? I tend to use the 'gift economy' term myself, in a meaning identical to that of 'free-access'.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Do you think the semantic distinction is significant -- ?

I suppose I do - the term "gift economy" is closely associated with certain Amerindian societies and the mode of distribution that prevailed in there. This, in turn, might lead to a confusion about what we're trying to accomplish - i.e. it doesn't distinguish communists from primmies, I guess.

Or maybe I'm just reading too much into this. That's what I do.

[ckaihatsu]

I suppose I do - the term "gift economy" is closely associated with certain Amerindian societies and the mode of distribution that prevailed in there. This, in turn, might lead to a confusion about what we're trying to accomplish - i.e. it doesn't distinguish communists from primmies, I guess.

Or maybe I'm just reading too much into this. That's what I do.


Shit -- I'm going to have to re-do all of my graphic illustrations that use the term 'gift economy'...(!) (grin)


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimage.org/ccfl07uy5/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/)