Sustainability of a gift economy.

[Bravener]

The vast majority of the world lives in poverty, its a fact. Now, in order for a gift economy (or a transitional period) to bring this population into the same standard of living alot of the first world enjoys, seems to me, will take a vast amount of resources. Is this feasible? The first world alone already uses large resources. Or am I off track about this?

However, I do aknowledge the fact that I am looking at this from our world today. It is difficult to picture our society we strive for. Many of the infastructure we have now would be utterly useless. (Banks, Insurance, Marketing, etc.) So resources would be put to more practical uses.

Your thoughts?

[welshboy]

The reason that developed areas use vast amounts of resources is because of the crazy amount of over production under capitalism. Western nations have more food than we eat and many products have built in obsolescence. Look at the number of consumer tech items that get thrown away every year and the amount of food that fills up the bins at the back of your local supermarket.
In a sane mode of production and distribution a region would only produce what was needed and surplus would be distributed to other regions.
With scientific research and development freed from the shackles of capitalism I would hope to see rapid advances in clean efficient energy production. Medicines again once freed from the multinational corporations would mean first world levels of health care for all.
With clean energy, free health care for all and the spread of technological advancements we would be able to all have access to decent education and the benefits that these things bring.

[rouchambeau]

I don't think it would be feasible or even desirable to have everyone to have the American standard of living. It would simply require too many resources.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Well there are couple things we need to look at here. First of all, a gift ecnomy implies the principles of solidarity and mutual aid. Now if we are true to these principles than any gift economy needs to gear itself towards providing resources that workers in the 3rd world can use in their economic planning. If there is a malapportion of productive assets than we must seek to fix this. However I don't think its a big problem. There's so much waste in capitalism that the typical American resource requirement could be slashed significantly without a real change in living standards and with a real shift towards sustainability. The excess capacity could be used to boost up other less developed economic areas.

[Vanguard1917]

The vast majority of the world lives in poverty, its a fact. Now, in order for a gift economy (or a transitional period) to bring this population into the same standard of living alot of the first world enjoys, seems to me, will take a vast amount of resources. Is this feasible?


Yes, of course it is 'feasible' to raise the living standards of the poorest countries to those of the richest countries. In fact, living standards in the 'first world' also need to be raised. The implication that they're high enough - or even too high! - is unacceptable from a socialist perspective.

Capitalism is the cause of underdevelopment. It hinders industrial progress worldwide and acts as a fetter on our productive potential. The removal of capitalist restraints on human productivity will give way to a level of development which we cannot really begin to imagine from the limitations in scope of our current perspective.



I don't think it would be feasible or even desirable to have everyone to have the American standard of living. It would simply require too many resources.


Then, frankly, you should seriously question why you call yourself a 'leftist'. The suggestion that it's 'undesirable' to raise the living standards of the developing world to even the - extremely modest - heights of the American median, is both laughable and criminal.

[Sendo]

I agree. It's quite unfair that my family growing up had only one SUV with which to burn oil. I felt quite cheated by life. I mean, the hour-long commutes to anywhere worth going should have been complete with built-in coffee makers, too.

So is the assumption that socialism is merely a more efficient way to lead the ridiculous, wasteful, consumerist lifestyle? Or maybe we'll improve the 3rd world with more oil like we have. It's not like we're going to run out.

Now you'll have to excuse me, I have to run to a supermarket and buy some over-priced junk food imported from the states.

[Vanguard1917]

So is the assumption that socialism is merely a more efficient way to lead the ridiculous, wasteful, consumerist lifestyle?

Be specific. Don't rant. What exactly do you mean by 'ridicuous, wasteful, consumerist lifestyle'?

If 'anti-consumerism' means lowering the consumption levels of the masses - i.e. lowering their standards of living - socialists are the number one enemies of this 'anti-consumerism'.



Or maybe we'll improve the 3rd world with more oil like we have.


The 'third world' should industrialise however it sees fit to industrialise - whether that requires coal, oil or whatever is for developing countries to decide for themselves. It's not for Western eco-imperialists.

And it's a bit rich of environmentalists to moan about oil when they're among the most vocal opponents of its main viable alternative - nuclear energy.

[Dros]

I agree. It's quite unfair that my family growing up had only one SUV with which to burn oil. I felt quite cheated by life. I mean, the hour-long commutes to anywhere worth going should have been complete with built-in coffee makers, too.

So is the assumption that socialism is merely a more efficient way to lead the ridiculous, wasteful, consumerist lifestyle? Or maybe we'll improve the 3rd world with more oil like we have. It's not like we're going to run out.

Now you'll have to excuse me, I have to run to a supermarket and buy some over-priced junk food imported from the states.

Take your idealist, puritanical, primi bullshit somewhere else.

Despite the rude and stupid ranting of this post, you have still failed to provide one reason or one cogent argument as to why consumption is wrong. Socialists are scientists, not moralists. Make an argument or shut the hell up.

[Kropotesta]

Despite the rude
Pot? Kettle?

[Dros]

Pot? Kettle?

Yeah so what? I'm an asshole to primitivists! And obnoxious "anti-consumerists" (puritans).

[Kropotesta]

Yeah so what? I'm an asshole to primitivists! And obnoxious "anti-consumerists" (puritans).
Can't argue with that! :cool:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Gift relations are sequential when supply outstrips demand. You cannot turn air and most rocks into commodities simply because they're plentiful. There is little labor required for me to take a heap of air. We see the gift economy pushing markets out on the internet when it comes to software, music, literature, and other bits of information. P2P, Wikis, and other sources of mutual aid develop without government provision. Ironically, what stand in their way is government protection through copyrights. Since capitalism is based in the false notion of private property, the government just institutionalizes written contracts by producers to mean that a consumer has to abide by that producer's desires - even if it's through a replication.

Pitching anti-consumerism as a philosophical point is fine by me, but socialism is about richening everyone. Even the developed world, even the USA, isn't "good enough." We look for material wants to be satisfied. To do this we have to increase productivity. How? By eliminating the faults of capitalism. Namely:

- Technological and scientific research into maintaining market hegemonies abroad will be turned into research projects for automation
- Removing corporations, who actually suffer from the problem of size more than the benefits due to their top-down structure. Large-scale workers' councils would be better.
- Promoting workers' councils, cooperatives, independent workers, small businesses, and/or other forms of worker control, which tend to be more productive than top-down firms.
- Bringing resources under the direct control of the public
- Dismantling the highly bureaucratic states
- Guaranteeing full employment for everyone who wants a job
- (By getting rid of a price system, about 1/3 of all work forces can be directed towards actual, productive jobs. Currently they are only employed to manage, watch, secure, handle, count, and fight for money)