The third leg

Post Reply New Topic

If capitalism espouses a free market as a way to create wealth, and socialism promulgates a controlled market to alleviate economic injustice,

Then what of gift economies? Can a gift culture create prosperity? Social Justice?

I say yes!

A gift economy is based on a society that has abundance. It is not an theoretical thing like socialism, and it is not a moving target in the way that capitalism is. It has existed in the past. In such a culture, one gains prestige from sharing wealth.

You can immediately see that it bypasses the problem of socialist policy, where workers are under little compunction to work harder. At the same time, it negates the benefit of hoarding and unsavoury behaviour that lets one advance in a capitalist society.

Can it exist in modern society? Yes, it already does. And its growing.

For example, the open source and free software movements are the blossoming of a gift economy. Reprap manufacturing is as well.

Now for the inflammatory statements!

Marx was wrong! Communism will never come. It will never succeed.

Smiths ideas are history. Capitalism will give birth to a bastard mutant child and then die.

Gift culture will exchange the fruits of hard work for prestige, reputation and good will. It should alleviate the plight of the unfortunate, enabling them to contribute intellectually for societies benefit.

Though you are correct in your claims about the free software movement, the same principles could not be applied to the economy as a whole. The reason is that when dealing with software, there is little gain to hoarding software, and so the value of prestige from giving it away exceeds the cost of giving it away. However, when you're dealing with, say, food, shelter, and clothing, people certainly benefit more from keeping those things to themselves than they do from giving them to others.

Also, as you said, it presupposes a society with abundance. What do you propose to do about the majority of the world that is not currently experiencing abundance?

^ You are right that intellectual property like software is easier to share, as the incremental cost of reproducing it is so close to zero.

But the notion of giving or gifts does play an important role in some economies - from a barn-raising among the Amish to the Potlach among some Indians. Such activities are not pure altruism, as they involve mutual obligation ... everyone gives a little when called on depending on their ability, and those who are in greatest need stand to benefit most. It is really like a form of insurance and stabilization. I don't think it can replace markets or self-centered trade, but it can improve a society. The Amish and Potlach indians probably spend about 90% of their time working for their own families, and then came together to share to a lesser (but significant) degree.

Halloween is a trivial example - everyone could simply buy their own kids treats and 'rationalize' the process. But there was added value in the old days - people went around and visited with their neighbors, lots of neighbors used to have their own specialty foods that they made (popcorn balls, candy apples from their own trees, etc). Today, it is often empty ritual as people don't know their neighbors and simply buy big bags of candy to hand out to the skrælings.

And of course, capitalism has had a significant gift component at times ... various charities hit up the businesses for donations, who get the prestige of having a hospital wing or little league team named in their honor. Its a blend of philanthropy and advertising. Even the coke kingpins in Columbia give to build schools, hospitals, and soccer pitches.

well, aside from an Indian tribe or two (the 'potlatch'), I don't know of any 'gift economies'.
The problem with idealism, is that it requires ideal people to make it work...

I don't tend to take people who use the words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' interchangeably very seriously.

Thats ok.

Anyway. I never used them interchangeably.

It sure seemed like that.

Well, very socialist countries(such as your own) and somewhat socialist countries(like my own) already exist. They thrive. My country is doing much better than the USA because our government interfered and disallowed the banks to merge and disallowed the sort of lending that the American financial institutions used.

So my final statement was quite literally aimed strictly at people hopeful of a society that entirely rejected the notion of private ownership.

My first statement, on the other hand tried to draw a triangle between corporate provided goods, state mandated goods, and the culture of gifting. Like some others have said, it already exists. Its a third leg of society.

That is a general problem with communities - they require people.