I want to write a little bit about economics. I know, I know, it's a
dirty word! But remember, it isn't necessarily a synonym for
exploitation; the eco in economic is the same as the eco in ecologic -- it
means hearth, or home. Etymologically, ecology means the study of the
house, and economy means the organization of the house. Organization
isn't something to be embarassed about, not if you organize it yourself
and in your own interests: "plan your work, work your plan"! It's
organization from above that's the problem. So what would an economy of
emancipation look like?
Let's have a look at what we're dealing with: we are accustomed to the
conditions of a capitalist economy. We sell our hours for promissary
notes in calculable currency. We redeem promissary notes for goods and
services. Some of our savings are syphoned off by a bureaucratic
apparatus in which we play next to no role in the management of. These
syphoned savings are redistributed primarily in favour of the short-term
interests of the already-rich, but enough benefits trickle down the power
pyramid to ensure the collaboration of the so-called lower classes.
There is another kind of economy with which we are intimately familiar:
the barter economy. In this system, we give goods and services that we
are able to produce or provide, and we receive different goods and
services in exchange from our trading partners. In a barter economy,
there is no monetary conduit required, and therefore the exchange can
occur without the oversight of a bureaucratic apparatus of any sort.
Transactions take place in the short-term interests of the two trading
parties.
Surely the first thing you think of when I write barter economy is a
primitive village. You imagine trading fruits and vegetables for milk and
eggs, construction knowledge for medical services. You envision a time
long gone when population was low, we all lived in villages, and trade
only occurred at the local level. But I maintain, and an anthropological
analysis would concur, that all of your relationships with all of your
friends are also barter relationships. I would even include all of your
lovers in this category!
Don't believe me? You insist that your friendships are not financial
transactions? Let Paul pick up the cheque 5 times in a row, and see if he
still invites you to his next birthday party. So your romantic
partnership has absolutely nothing to do with personal interests? Oh
yeah? Make sure you get your rocks off, but stop giving your girlfriend
her orgasms for the next couple of months, we'll see how long it takes for
her to get fed up and throw your clothes out the window. The parent-child
relationship is special, sacred? Be bitchy to your bratty kid, then wait
and see if he'll still wipe your ass when you're old and in the way.
I've found that there are typically two community attitudes towards
economic activity. Some people live in community because there are very
real financial advantages that are afforded by the economies of scale that
are achieved by partnering up with others.*** These people want to
restrict the size of the in-group to only the optimal amount of members
necessary to achieve the highest possible living standard. But other
people live in community not as a means to an economic end, but as an
ideological end in itself, and they want to actively expand their circle
of cooperation to every living being.
I propose that there is a third kind of economic arrangement, sometimes
called a gift economy. It can be paraphrased by the statement "from each
according to her ability, to each according to her needs". But here I'm
not talking about a governing body that artificially creates equality by
redistributing resources, and reassures individuals that the taxes taken
from them are getting to the right places. What I'm suggesting is people
giving freely of whatever they may have, to whoever may need it,
unreservedly, without keeping score, and trusting that somehow, someway,
the spiritual component of the universe will unfailingly provide for their
own material needs.
So what do gift-economy relationships look like? We don't start up
co-operative corporations that must compete with capitalist corporations,
and therefore often act in the same ways. No, we create goods and
services and give them away. All we ask for in return is to PWYC --
pay-what-you-can donations. And for many people, polyamory is the gift
economy as applied to romantic relationships. We do not require
exclusivity as a precondition for partnership; love is given freely for
its own sake. We give what we have without thinking twice about it. We
know that our own needs will be met, just not necessarily by the same
person that we support.
But this revolutionary economic activity has a catch-22, it's a prisoner's
dilemma. For it to be successful, a critical mass of gifters need to
conquer fear and put their faith in one another and human nature -- no,
not human nature, but NATURE's nature! It requires you to do a trust fall
with the universe. But the good news is that evolutionary biologists like
Elisabet Sahtouris have scientifically substantiated what cultural critic
Norie Huddle has been saying for decades now: that ultimately, every
single species, including our own, eventually matures into a healthy holon
within a cooperative holarchy!
I applaud any group of people who band together and share resources and
responsibilities in common. But if they're doing it for their own
reasons, then they don't need any of my applause, because community is its
own real reward. With all of those labour hours saved by cutting down
commute times and removing redudancies in goods and services, I'd like to
see more of them being spent increasing the peace, not just their own
piece of the pie. I know it's another bad word, but... I'd like to see a
gift-economy commune go colonial! Grow and split, grow and split... until
this big bad caterpillar turns into a beautiful butterfly!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzU3H7E0DO8
www.sahtouris.com
www.bestgame.org
***
