Gift Economy

[Cloud]

What are your thoughts on Gift Economys? I'm rather fond of the idea and I think it makes a great system approach towards communalism and anarchism.

[Enragé]

its the way communism should be

[Noah]

What is a gift economy?

[Dimentio]

The problem which I see with it is that it assumes that the production would still be taking place on an individual basis, as in pre-modern societies, instead of mass-produced. Mass-production, or rather the capacity to mass-produce is one of the foundations of communism.

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 09:11 pm
What is a gift economy?
Gift economics is one of the central ideals of anarcho-communism. Let's say me and you are farmers. I had a good season, and farmed more than enough food to sustain myself. You had some bad luck, and you might not have enough to keep yourself satisfied. The gift comes when I give you some of my excess food. In return, it's agreed upon that you will do the same thing for me.

[Zeruzo]

I think that it can be used by more resourcefull area's to exploit others... I mean, if 1 region is dependant upon the supply of 3 products from another region, and that region only needs 1 product from that region and they cna also get it from other regions, this is an opportunity to exploit this first region. (am i still making sense :))

So in short: Gift economy's do not take the market into account, so it basically is still a free market only you have regions in stead of individuals being participants of that market.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 03:12 pm
The problem which I see with it is that it assumes that the production would still be taking place on an individual basis, as in pre-modern societies, instead of mass-produced. Mass-production, or rather the capacity to mass-produce is one of the foundations of communism.
I'm fairly sure things can still be mass produced with a gift economy; it's kind of the point after all.

[Janus]

I'm rather fond of the idea and I think it makes a great system approach towards communalism and anarchism.
It's how most communists perceive a future revolutionary society will be run. A free access system must have recirprocal altruism in order to work rather than the type of trade that we see today.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by JKP+November 07, 2006 12:54 am--> (JKP @ November 07, 2006 12:54 am)
[email protected] 06, 2006 03:12 pm
The problem which I see with it is that it assumes that the production would still be taking place on an individual basis, as in pre-modern societies, instead of mass-produced. Mass-production, or rather the capacity to mass-produce is one of the foundations of communism.
I'm fairly sure things can still be mass produced with a gift economy; it's kind of the point after all. [/b]
Then it is not a gift economy anymore, since gift economies require a transaction between individuals. Then it would be distributionism instead, as in technocracy.

[Cloud]

I think that it can be used by more resourcefull area's to exploit others... I mean, if 1 region is dependant upon the supply of 3 products from another region, and that region only needs 1 product from that region and they cna also get it from other regions, this is an opportunity to exploit this first region. (am i still making sense )

So in short: Gift economy's do not take the market into account, so it basically is still a free market only you have regions in stead of individuals being participants of that market.

Agreed, I do not see gift economys really being of "communist" nature in a sense unless enacted upon a communal level. For international levels, where multiple resources are abundant in one area while one isnt, then it seems that the gift economy, like you said, would lead to the exploitation of other regions/individuals.

Also, I do not believed I expressed anarchism in the sense that i'm percieving this here. I'm a believer upon trans-nationalism when it comes to anarchism, which is why I follow the idea of gift economys to help keep in an equal state those outside of the anarchist movement, not internationalism.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Serpent+November 07, 2006 04:48 am--> (Serpent @ November 07, 2006 04:48 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 12:54 am

[email protected] 06, 2006 03:12 pm
The problem which I see with it is that it assumes that the production would still be taking place on an individual basis, as in pre-modern societies, instead of mass-produced. Mass-production, or rather the capacity to mass-produce is one of the foundations of communism.
I'm fairly sure things can still be mass produced with a gift economy; it's kind of the point after all.
Then it is not a gift economy anymore, since gift economies require a transaction between individuals. Then it would be distributionism instead, as in technocracy. [/b]
Except that with technocracy you need to spend energy credits, where as in a gift economy you pick up an item for free.

[Zeruzo]

No, you exchange items. You dont just 'pick it up'.

[The Bitter Hippy]

I'm no expert on leftist thinking here, but personally i am against the entire idea of ownership implied in a gift economy. It seems to me to be a well-disguised marketplace. And i thought we were agreed that no vestige of the capitalist system can be left behind? a complete clean sweep?

The way i envision it is basically the current flow of resources from primary industry to secondary to tertiary, but without money. (see below)

if this is what you all mean as a gift economy, i'm all for it. Or if this is preceisely the type of thinking that makes cappies call communism impossible, i'm keen to know. but this is what my idea looks like:

A farmer/miner farms, and puts his produce on a truck. The truck goes to a factory, where a bunch of workers hit it and burn it until it is food and consumer goods. they put these on a van, which goes to a big warehouse. Meantime, other people are building houses, teaching children, making sick people better and finding out how to make mining and farming and hitting-and-burning easier. Workers and miners and assorted others come along to the warehouse, and eat all they can, and take whatever they want.

That assumes a sufficiently advanced capitalist economy pre-revolution to provide the magic surplus. If that doesn't exist at the time of revolution, assume there's a lazy person sitting at home, not teaching, mining or hitting-and-burning. Lazyman doesn't eat. Lazyman starves. (or possibly just goes with the bare minimum if the community are generous.)

That's how i've always understood a post-revolution communist society to function, with the workers' coordination pseudo-state educating people who haord (violence optional), shooting people who exploit other people within this system (violence not quite so optional, but still negotiable), and holding the links between farm and factory together until it isn't necessary.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by JKP+November 11, 2006 06:10 am--> (JKP @ November 11, 2006 06:10 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 04:48 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 12:54 am

[email protected] 06, 2006 03:12 pm
The problem which I see with it is that it assumes that the production would still be taking place on an individual basis, as in pre-modern societies, instead of mass-produced. Mass-production, or rather the capacity to mass-produce is one of the foundations of communism.
I'm fairly sure things can still be mass produced with a gift economy; it's kind of the point after all.
Then it is not a gift economy anymore, since gift economies require a transaction between individuals. Then it would be distributionism instead, as in technocracy.
Except that with technocracy you need to spend energy credits, where as in a gift economy you pick up an item for free. [/b]
The energy credits are also freely and equally distributed to the population. They are not instituted to keep a system of exchange either, as they go into oblivion when used. They are only there to prevent the tragedy of the commons.

[Floyce White]

Today, on another message board, I replied to the same topic with this post:

The gift-giving society is called "tribalism." In tribalism, an upper "chieftain" class of families owns resources, and gives lower-class families the gifts of work tools (such as canoes). In turn, lower "warrior" class families are indebted, and use the tools to repay their debts (for instance, by catching fish). In practice, the lower-class families get further and further into debt as their repayment of small bits of daily labor can never match the supposed beneficence of the rich in giving tools that take many days or weeks of labor to create. Of course, the labor in these tools was given to repay family debts as well.

There is no point trying to work up an abstract, what-if gift economy when there are thousands of years of experience with the real thing.

[moskvax]

Originally posted by Floyce White
The gift-giving society is called "tribalism." In tribalism, an upper "chieftain" class of families owns resources, and gives lower-class families the gifts of work tools (such as canoes). In turn, lower "warrior" class families are indebted, and use the tools to repay their debts...

What does this have to do with a gift economy? It's implied by the word "gift" that the economy operates on a basis of altruism, thus it does not involve moral or material debt.

[Floyce White]

Gifts presuppose non-gifts and the power to decide for others what things they will receive or not be allowed to use. Gifts presupposes a property system.

A society of sharing doesn't have any property claim to transfer or keep for one's self; therefore, both gifts and non-gifts prove the non-existence of a society of sharing.

A gift does indeed involve material debt. That's the whole purpose of giving gifts, and reciprocation is for the purpose of repayment. Learn from Christmas instead of ignoring the example and idealizing the gift-giving ritual.

Also, "economics" is the social science that describes property and its exchange. There is no such thing as "a sharing economy." The very way y'all phrase the issue is evidence that you recognize it as a form of class society.

[wangwei]

Gifts presuppose non-gifts and the power to decide for others what things they will receive or not be allowed to use. Gifts presupposes a property system.

Exactly. A gift economy is just another way of explaining a commodity economy.

We are forgetting that under an anarchist communist society, the working class will regulate the social production in its own interest. A gift economy does NOT fit into this economic system at all. A gift economy possesses the same essence as gift giving at Christmas. Here, now you OWE me. That's completely antithetical to communism. Ownership is by the commune with the desire to have no forms of exploitation existing.


There is no point trying to work up an abstract, what-if gift economy when there are thousands of years of experience with the real thing.

Floyce is correct here, as before the gifts were just called tribute.

"recirprocal altruism " will not be the fundamental principal of communism, as mutual aid and affinity will be. The brain does not give gifts to the hand, they just function as one organism working together, and that is how communism will work. A gift economy obfuscates the direct struggle for an egalitarian society based on "from each according to ability, and to each according to need" not gift.

[Entrails Konfetti]

What are you saying? Under Communism we'll see the end of economy as we know it?

If this is all semantics why don't you two phrase what you believe is a better term than "gift" economy. (Hungry?--Go-Eat--economy?)

[Floyce White]

I already mentioned in some other thread that the goal of struggle is to bankrupt all business (rather than favoring state-owned business over family-owned business). The goal of struggle is to permanently end the practice of commanding others. With no more obedience to commands, and no need to figure out which subsequent commands to order, most activities will no longer be recorded or analyzed.

The goal is not to recreate the social system based on accounting and analyzing. The goal is to return to natural human ecology. Ecology is a biological condition not an artificial construct. Unlike economics, it is not necessary to scheme and conjure up ecologics. Human society is extremely cooperative even under duress. Without police, people will cooperate even more.

As an aside, only a young and inexperienced comrade would ask if we're advocating a "hungry-go-eat" society. A large fraction of the population always consists of children, old folks, and sick people. I seriously doubt that anyone on this thread is suggesting that alienation is desirable.

[KC]

What are you saying? Under Communism we'll see the end of economy as we know it?

Bourgeois economy, yes. Economy will be a much different form as it will be the mere distribution of goods throughout society. I think a good term would be a use-value economy.

[wangwei]

What are you saying? Under Communism we'll see the end of economy as we know it?

uhm... yes. The end of the economic system as we know it, uhm, the negation of capitalism in all forms, the negation of the state, the decentralization of all power into the working class -- yeah, that pretty much ends the capitalist economy as we know it. ;)


Ecology is a biological condition not an artificial construct. Unlike economics, it is not necessary to scheme and conjure up ecologics. Human society is extremely cooperative even under duress. Without police, people will cooperate even more

I agree, as the dialectical relationship between contingency and need will be the fundamental aspect of the drive to communist economic principles. The desire for the working class to meet their needs will be dependent upon all members of the working class having their needs met. This egalitarian situation will cause the contingent economic process and organization to organically work itself out as the needs of the working class are met. The organization of economic relations is epiphenominal to the actually meeting the working class' needs. The economic relations are contingent upon the struggle for communist economic relations. The social sphere is the place where the struggle to unmake the "command and obey" domination of man over man ideology of the oppressor, remake our social relations, and create the foundation for communism. This requires the absolute end to property and wages and the unity and solidarity of the working class against all forms of exploitation and commodification.

The gift economy is a strand of anarcho-capitalism and should be chucked in the dustbin of bad ideas along with Proudhon's collectivism and Godwin's labor certificates. The struggle is for a society that meets the needs of all by all and for all. The principle is "from each according to ability and to each according to need."

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by FW
With no more obedience to commands, and no need to figure out which subsequent commands to order, most activities will no longer be recorded or analyzed.
I don't know about that, I think some people somewhere would have to keep track of what produce, or products (product- not in a comoditty sense) they have so there isn't a famine or so the society can provide in itself in a major disaster.

However, if there is a bottomless pit of neccessities and luxuries then what I wrote can be disreguarded.


The goal is not to recreate the social system based on accounting and analyzing. The goal is to return to natural human ecology. Ecology is a biological condition not an artificial construct.
The above could be proven if natural was universal. No one can know what is natural or artifical. It's almost like you are saying there are universal truths.


As an aside, only a young and inexperienced comrade would ask if we're advocating a "hungry-go-eat" society. A large fraction of the population always consists of children, old folks, and sick people. I seriously doubt that anyone on this thread is suggesting that alienation is desirable.
I asked you honest questions and you singled me out, as a member you do that alot. Also, I didn't think anyone was advocating a sort social-darwinist society like you claim, but maybe a society so easy on people that they can get what they want without the slightest bit of effort.

[Floyce White]

El Kablamo: "...so there isn't a famine or so the society can provide in itself in a major disaster. However, if there is a bottomless pit of necessities and luxuries then what I wrote can be disreguarded."

You really should reconsider this position. Play Station 3 is a "bottomless pit" luxury. So is rack of lamb at Top Of The Mark. I can live without them. My self-esteem isn't based on getting others to slave away, year after year, to make such trifling commodities. I feel the same way about silos full of overproduced grain. People will make what they reasonably need--if they make the decisions about what to make.

El Kablamo: "I asked you honest questions and you singled me out, as a member you do that alot."

Why do you suppose I do that?

El Kablamo: "Also, I didn't think anyone was advocating a sort social-darwinist society like you claim, but maybe a society so easy on people that they can get what they want without the slightest bit of effort."

My experience is that the bulk of work is churned out by a small percent of workers who are well-experienced with tools and machinery, and more importantly, work very consistently and efficiently. Most people aren't really that productive for most of their lives. Some workers are so bad at doing work, they mess up everything they touch. Others do a lot of work, but of barely-adequate quality. A big effort that results in little useful product--what good is that? All in all, it's better if raw materials are spoiled only as necessary for learning and getting better at the job. The demand that others make "effort" is not a concern for physical output, but rather for social conformity. ("Look busy, the boss is coming!")

Some people feel a lot of stress and can't handle working for some years. It's counterproductive to crank at them. Some people never really understand to help others. I don't rev my engine about everyone not being a "model inmate." I'm not worried about today's slaves being slavishly lazy. I see it the other way. I am very critical of those who loudmouth about "hard work" and "success." I am very critical of those who demand that others make a big show of their "good deeds." And that's another disgusting aspect of the gift-giving ritual.

I'm perfectly happy with a world of independent-minded people who make whatever efforts they think are appropriate for the activities they themselves choose to do. Demanding that others account for their whereabouts and their doings--that's some kind of police state. That's not the world I'm fighting for. If that's not the kind of world you're fighting for either, you should take the counter-arguments more seriously.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 18, 2006 06:00 am
You really should reconsider this position. Play Station 3 is a "bottomless pit" luxury. So is rack of lamb at Top Of The Mark. I can live without them. My self-esteem isn't based on getting others to slave away, year after year, to make such trifling commodities. I feel the same way about silos full of overproduced grain. People will make what they reasonably need--if they make the decisions about what to make.

Yes there are certainly things I can live without. Not out of altruism, but because I have to.

Maybe under Communism we will see the disappearance of luxuries, all luxuries are really necessities with more features and of the best quality. Yes you and me aren't to crazy about ps3. It's not our thing. But ofcourse we both need entertainment to make life more enjoyable. Anyways, under Communism there we be no reason for anything of lesser quality to be brought into existence since class society has dissolved. In Todays world the different qualities of goods made correspond to the social-classes, but when theres no social-classes no lesser quality goods, but at the same time no luxuries because everyone could have luxuries-- if everyone has luxuries, no one has luxuries.


...If that's not the kind of world you're fighting for either, you should take the counter-arguments more seriously
I think you misunderstood me.

Let me corret myself:
Also, I didn't think anyone was advocating a sort social-darwinist society like you claim (that I was), but maybe a society so easy on people that they can get what they want without the slightest bit of effort

[anarchista feminista]

Originally posted by Red Tendency+November 07, 2006 10:13 am--> (Red Tendency @ November 07, 2006 10:13 am)
[email protected] 06, 2006 09:11 pm
What is a gift economy?
Gift economics is one of the central ideals of anarcho-communism. Let's say me and you are farmers. I had a good season, and farmed more than enough food to sustain myself. You had some bad luck, and you might not have enough to keep yourself satisfied. The gift comes when I give you some of my excess food. In return, it's agreed upon that you will do the same thing for me. [/b]
Is this similar to bartering? I'd like to know what people think about bartering in an anarchist/communist society.

[wangwei]

I'd like to know what people think about bartering in an anarchist/communist society.

Bartering will not exist in an anarchist communist society as a social norm. An narchist Communist society will struggle mightily against the idea of barter, as the tenet is "from each according to ability and to each according to need." Bartering is basically the origin of mediums of exchange and fall under the relation of trade. The goal of bartering is to improve what you have for something better, even if altruistic goals are desired, the material necessity of the laws of exchange govern the barter relationship.

No bartering in an anarchist communist society. There will be fundamentally different social relationship within that society.

[robbo203]

Hi

I think the point about a gift economy that is missing in these exchanges is that it is fundamentally a moral economy. It binds people in ties of mutual obligation. It is not the same as a market economy since it does not involve quid pro quo exchanges - there is no haggling. Indeed for that very reason it can apply to both mass or heteronomous production and individual autonomous production.

Reciprocity is entailed in a gift economy but what seems to be overlooked is that there are different kinds of recipocrity. Direct reciprocity obtains between two individuals; generalised reciprocity does not.

It is possible to envisage a moneyless marketless stateless system of production based on free acess to goods and services and voluntary labour (communism/socialism) as a kind of gift economy largely characterised by generalised reciprocity in which we all recognise our mutual interdependence and our mutual obligations towards one another. Needless to say this does not rule out direct reciprocity - gift exchanges between individuals - in the sphere of autonomous production (e.g. kitchen garden produce, craftwork etc)

Robin
www.worldincommon.org

[Dimentio]

It is not flawless. People could simply refuse to act morally and it will collapse. Taboos are needed to maintain it, it is based upon control over people, or at least their values. And it is based upon pre-modern economics where there is often only one stage of production.

How should sophisticated products like cell-phones, TV;s, computers, cars and utilities like water pipes, broad band and roads be dealt with in a gift economy? Who was the %&%&%¤& who came with this idea?

[robbo203]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 10:12 pm
It is not flawless. People could simply refuse to act morally and it will collapse. Taboos are needed to maintain it, it is based upon control over people, or at least their values. And it is based upon pre-modern economics where there is often only one stage of production.
[QUOTE]

Hi Serpent

Well, need it be based on pre-modern techniques as you suggest. Hopw would you respond to my point about generalised reciprocity which , it seems to me, encapsulates the spirit of a communist society

Robin
www.worldincommon.org

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by robbo203+December 30, 2006 10:23 pm--> (robbo203 @ December 30, 2006 10:23 pm) [quote][email protected] 30, 2006 10:12 pm
It is not flawless. People could simply refuse to act morally and it will collapse. Taboos are needed to maintain it, it is based upon control over people, or at least their values. And it is based upon pre-modern economics where there is often only one stage of production.



Hi Serpent

Well, need it be based on pre-modern techniques as you suggest. Hopw would you respond to my point about generalised reciprocity which , it seems to me, encapsulates the spirit of a communist society

Robin
www.worldincommon.org [/b]
I am very critical of it. Modern production of utilities, products and services is a multi-stage process requiring constant interaction between different producers and producers and consumers. Hence we need an advanced society.

Gift economies have worked - in stone age societies in the South Pacific!

In pre-modern societies, division of labor is less existant than in advanced societies. An advanced society is desirable because it allows for a higher standard of life.

[robbo203]

Hi Serpent

Sure, I understand what you are saying about modern production and I wouldnt want to dispense with the advanced techniques that go with it. But my point really is about the nature of a gift economy and whether such an economy is restricted to a pre-modern society. I am suggesting this is not the case and it requires rethinking the nature of a gift economy in terms of generalised reciprocity (see my earlier post on this)

Cheers

Robin
www.worldincommon.org

[Dimentio]

Why rely on human interaction when we have machines?