Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: gift economy based on trust, love, etc..

Posted 1 year ago on May 18, 2013, 10:01 p.m. EST by fujikato (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I just wonder what you think of a social-economic system, where we dont buy and sell and trade anymore, but gift each other with our talents. We just offer whatever services we can provide for free and receive free.

I mean isnt that the real spirit of that movement, to come together as a global community and go beyond the money, the banks, the greed and the egoism, all that drives us apart?

I think we long for a more humane system, where we do things out of love, where our real motivation is not money and materialism, but to become creative and productive with something that really fits us and benefits society in the same sense. We'd be like a big family, lived and worked together and shared what we got, so that everyone has a good life.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 1 year ago

I do believe we are moving toward a more loving, caring society, and when more people are motivated by love than hate/fear, it will result in a very dramatic and fast change in everything. All we have to do is make sure each one of us is acting out of love and, when we find ourselves drifting into negativity again, see it and stop it.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Hasn't this been tried? Didn't the hippies try this? Aren't small groups of people even trying it right now?

Even members of small families have their problems with agreeing upon what's fair and not everyone wants to be fair at all times which is why societies have always had rules.

In the beginning, there was no money and everyone did live and work together like a big family but for whatever reasons, people moved away from that way of life for the ways they now perpetuate.

Nothing is stopping most people from doing what is being suggested but most of those people are satisfied just the way things are and will continue to be so until conditions become intolerable for them.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19197) 1 year ago

This article about how immigrants come to the U.S. from places like Mexico and actually end up with a lower life expectancy is very interesting. Loss of extended family and home grown food are big factors. The switch from a more indigenous economy with networks of sharing to the stressful U.S. version of capitalism and instant gratification through phony consumerism actually causes a shorter lifespan.


"A growing body of mortality research on immigrants has shown that the longer they live in this country, the worse their rates of heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. And while their American-born children may have more money, they tend to live shorter lives than the parents."

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

fujikato, I truly believe you are seeing the future...

  • from a logistics approach.... it must & will come...
  • technology alone will force us there...
  • a hundred (if not 50) years from now ... robotics & biological engineering will perform every labor... and do so on location and instantaneously ...
  • how are we as a people, as a society going to cope with that...
  • material wealth will become old fashion...
  • material wealth will become as much a ball & chain as a benefit...
  • art, talent, knowledge, & freedom will become the new wealth...

  • and ... we have an opportunity to hurry it along....

  • as the Federal Reserve Bank... is driven by and caters to nothing but monetary profits & the expansion of that system....
  • we have an opportunity to do the same .... not focused on monetary wealth but on social wealth....
  • we can build a Social Reserve Bank... that can provide the capital to promote and develop non-monetary based industries....
[-] 0 points by AlwaysWiIIBeAlwaysRight (-96) 1 year ago

You're talking about Karl Marx's communism:


From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

  • "In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of scientific socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
[-] 1 points by highlander21 (-46) 1 year ago

I am sorry you feel that way. It would be noble and just to have a system like that. What would most likely happen, though, would be there would be a whole lot more takers than givers. There are too many people out there who believe that they are owed a living, a livelihood; they would take the gifts, not with gratitude and a feeling of pay it forward, but with a sense that it is owed to them.

[-] 1 points by Narley (525) 1 year ago

True. As much as love, generosity and compassion is inherent in humankind, so is greed, envy and fear. The utopia you seek has never existed, and it’s unlikely it ever will. Sorry, that’s just the way it is.

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Justice is a social expression of love.

[-] -3 points by AlwaysWiIIBeAlwaysRight (-96) 1 year ago

This can only happen with the removal of scarcity of resources. We are not there yet. Karl Marx noted that the main prerequisite for communism is the a society with no scarcity. We are still far from that.

Your idea is not new. It has been discussed by scholars for a long time. Perhaps one day, with the proper technology resources will become so common we won't have to fight over them. At this point, we can live in a type of communist world you imagine.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago
  • what fujikato is describing ... does not have to fall under communism ...
  • in fact it would never have happened under communism ...
  • communism or any other system that controls the people like socialism, capitalism, corporatism.. etc.... will restrict us from the freedoms necessary to help each other....
[-] 1 points by AlwaysWiIIBeAlwaysRight (-96) 1 year ago

True communism, the one of Karl Marx, does not have a form of government. It's essentially people governing themselves in the OWS style of anarcho-communism. You know OWS is communist right? Anarcho-communist to be precise.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

You know OWS is communist right? .....

hehehe .... you don't know Anarchism ;)

Anarchism is only Anarchism ... and nothing more ... and nothing less ...

If you have ever lived on a commune .... you will know.... when communes adopt rules ... people leave .... when there are no rules and much love... everyone help's out ... w/o being asked

[-] 0 points by AlwaysWiIIBeAlwaysRight (-96) 1 year ago

There are many types of anarchy. Some very distinct from each other, almost contrasting. For example anarcho-communism vs anarcho-individualism. Anarchy is just not "only anarchy". There are various schools of thought on the subject and thousands upon thousands of pages writen by scholars. It goes very deep.


Communism refers to economy, like capitalism. Anarchy refers to governance, like the representative republic.

OWS is anarcho-communism. If you don't know that yet, after 2 years more, what else can I say but educate yourself.

And, by the way, a commune doesn't necessarily have anything to do with anarchism. Many communes were not horizontal, but had leaders or councils in the form of hierarchy. Those that were based on anarchy, were of the anarcho-primitivism type which is useless in my opinion. We have to move with technology, not try to live like primitives. The past is gone.

[-] 1 points by AlwaysWiIIBeAlwaysRight (-96) 1 year ago

True communism is not about controlling people. The reason communism failed in practice is because we didn't have the prerequisite of non-scarcity, a prerequisite Marx himself had already elaborated on.

Max believed that capitalism could lead to socialism, which could then lead to communism (the highest form). But to move from socialism to communism, we must have non-scarcity of foods and goods. This means an overabundance.

Marx's communism is exactly what fujikato is referring to.

A common slogan for socialism is - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds." Meaning jobs are allocated by ability, and money or rewards are according to deeds (how much a person works).

The slogan for communism is - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Meaning jobs are allocated by ability, and people are rewarded with whatever they may need.

It's obvious that to go from socialism to communism scarcity of foods and goods must be overcome so that everyone can have whatever he needs or desires.

I suggest you read this Wikipedia entry in full. It will help you understand communism, and you will see how closely it resembles what fujikato is talking about.


Here's an excerpt for those that don't follow links:

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" - Karl Mark

True communism, the one that Karl Marx envisioned, will come when we have enough automation to create a abundance of wealth. It is the future. True communism means the entire community can work as equals and can quench all their needs as equals.

It's important to understand this because OWS is essentially based on anarcho-communism. If you think communism means the failed communist states of yesteryears, then you fail to understand what OWS is all about.

Jacque Fresco's Venus project is also communism in the vein of Karl Marx's dream. Essentially the same thing as fujikato.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

True communism is not about controlling people. The reason communism failed in practice is because

  • Aw .... the never-ending gotchas ..
  • Capitalism would be perfect if only ....
  • Communism would be perfect if only ....
  • Socialism would be perfect if only ....

  • We will never get anywhere promoting OLD Ideas....

  • We live in a new world...
  • We need something new.... that has never been done before....

  • like maybe....... Freedom......

  • no border's to kill & die for .......
[-] 0 points by AlwaysWiIIBeAlwaysRight (-96) 1 year ago

It's not a gotcha. It's a fact derived from the economic theory of communism. If everyone is to be able to have anything they need, then we need to get past the stage of scarcity for that to happen. This was well known since the inception of the theory. Even the russians who called themselves communist knew they were actually socialist. They wrote about this. Communism was never put to practice because we haven't yet reached post-scarcity.

Some countries referred to themselves has communists simply because it was the height of Karl Marx and communism was considered a higher form of society in his theory. Countries didn't just want to say they were socialist, they wanted to say they had reached the best state: communism, even though they knew they hadn't.

And, note, I never said communism would be perfect. Who knows what would happen. It was never tested because we haven't reached post-scarcity yet. It could fail miserably just like capitalism has.

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

ohhhh.... information overload will destroy progress... opens the never-ending doors for eternal argument.... an economic tower of babel ....

please think about this....

  • put faith in the people ....
  • put faith in freedom ....
  • the design of all systems start out out with good intentions and good ideals...
  • if any of these ideologies would ever work... they would already have...
  • the reason they havn't worked is because they are put against each other...promoting one or the other....

  • if we put faith in people .... and realize that all people have good ideals...

  • we will also realize that maybe the communistic ideals & the capitalistic ideals are both good....
  • just focusing on the opposite side of the idealistic spectrum....

  • we will also realize that if we can reach a perfect Capitalism .... we will also have reached a perfect Communism ... simalaneously... in balance and working together....

  • I know this is hard to grasp ... but ... in practice ... neither Real Communism or Real Capitalism exists in world today... or ever....

  • both systems have exceptions to the ideals placed on them....

  • which becomes Socialism ... Socialism is a compromise .... every economic system in the world is some form of Socialism ... leaning one way or the other....

  • as with government... if we focus on the "Issues" and not the politics... we might reach success...

  • and so with economics.... if we focus on the ideals and not the politics ... we might reach success...
[-] -1 points by AlwaysWiIIBeAlwaysRight (-96) 1 year ago

if any of these ideologies would ever work... they would already have...

Not if prerequisites are not met. Communism cannot work without post-scarcity. Just like the Mars One Project cannot work without the prerequisite of building the spaceship and other apparatus needed.

we will also realize that if we can reach a perfect Capitalism .... we will also have reached a perfect Communism ... simalaneously... in balance and working together....

This makes no sense. Review your study of politics. Capitalism and communism are essentially a dichotomy.

I won't reply to your other points. They don't make sense because you fail to understand the inherent differences between capitalism, socialism, and communism. You should study these subjects before trying to discuss them with others.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

hehe... ok... you are right .... I don't understand .... ; ) ... tell me that again in another year ...

[-] -1 points by AlwaysWiIIBeAlwaysRight (-96) 1 year ago

Just read some of the links I posted, and grab some good books on political and economic system theory. It shouldn't take you long to realize that capitalism and communism are not compatible. Good luck with your readings. Take care.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Nowhere man - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfWEPu0w-7w

He's a real nowhere Man, Sitting in his Nowhere Land,

Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.

Doesn't have a point of view, Knows not where he's going to,

Isn't he a bit like you and me? ( not really )

Nowhere Man, please listen, You don't know what you're missing,

Nowhere Man, the world is at your command. ( U wish )

He's as blind as he can be, Just sees what he wants to see,

Nowhere Man can you see me at all? ( no not really )

Nowhere Man, don't worry,

Take your time, don't hurry,

Leave it all till somebody else lends you a hand. ( you need help )

Doesn't have a point of view, Knows not where he's going to,

Isn't he a bit like you and me? ( no not really )

Nowhere man please listen, you don't know what your missing Nowhere Man, the world is at your command ( is not - but U do wish )

He's a real Nowhere Man, Sitting in his Nowhere Land,

Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.

Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.

Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

hmmm... AlwaysBeRight.... why do you think I havn't already read that stuff & much more ? ....

[-] -2 points by AlwaysWiIIBeAlwaysRight (-96) 1 year ago

Your lack of knowledge pertaining to these subjects is revealing in your replies. If you have read profusely on these subjects, I suggest reading again with the help of a tutor.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

oh well ... ;~)

[-] -1 points by AlwaysWiIIBeAlwaysRight (-96) 1 year ago

With a type I Kardashev society there probably wouldn't be any borders. There would most likely be one currency, and communication throughout the globe.

We are slowly approaching this. Many scientists believe it could be done in 100 years time. We already have the Internet which is global communication, the bitcoin or something similar might be the one currency, and countries are working more and more together like the EU as opposed to a few hundred years ago when they were at each other's throats.

Communism was never tried. So, perhaps we will reach a state of post-scarcity and people could be free to work as communities helping each other instead of trying to acquire each other's scarce resources.

[-] -1 points by AlwaysWiIIBeAlwaysRight (-96) 1 year ago

Here's more help:

"Many anarchists, particularly anarcho-primitivists and anarcho-communists, believe that variations on a gift economy may be the key to breaking the cycle of poverty. Therefore they often desire to refashion all of society into a gift economy. Anarcho-communists advocate a gift economy as an ideal, with neither money, nor markets, nor central planning. This view traces back at least to Peter Kropotkin, who saw in the hunter-gatherer tribes he had visited the paradigm of "mutual aid". In place of a market, anarcho-communists, such as those who inhabited some Spanish villages in the 1930s, support a currency-less gift economy where goods and services are produced by workers and distributed in community stores where everyone (including the workers who produced them) is essentially entitled to consume whatever they want or need as payment for their production of goods and services."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 1 year ago

Does anyone foresee the total collapse of political/economical structures, requiring everything be done on a local level? With all of the access to information we have now, new ways of governance at the local level (which is pretty much what affects everyone) could be implemented, causing any state, regional, national organizations to be formed from the bottom up, as needed, really.