KenCat1337 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Many mistake a gift economy as people simply giving "gifts" or presents.. It's non-discriminatory because the "giver" does not chose who he or she gives it to. In a sense, it's a centralized body of free goods.

ppbbs88 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I know that tribal economies operating on a "gift" model can also facilitate inequalities - like the best parts of the meat from a group catch going to a prominent family within the tribe - or similar. Without explicit structures to govern consumption rights and organise work, unjust dynamics could develop.My main concern is basically that a gift economy might violate the norm that everybody should have control over decision-making to the extent that they are effected by said decisions.

ppbbs88 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

fair enough. Tribes would already (I'm guessing) operate like that, wouldn't they? Is a gift economy by definition a subsistence economy? How would the surplus be managed - would people be trusted to keep just what they need and give everything else to others? what would determine who would give what to who - or is this informally arranged? If it is informally arranged, what's to stop people from finding arrangements which are mutually beneficial but leave others worse off? transparency..?

KenCat1337 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I actually agree with participatory economics, a gift economy would be easier in non-formal working communities (like with a tribal lifestyle).

ppbbs88 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

KenCat1337 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Careful, now -- you're talking like a capitalist (money money money). lolI suppose they would be compensated for effort, sacrifice and market power. You keep what you need of what you made and give out the rest -- everyone does this (oversimplification).

ppbbs88 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

ok, cool. I still reckon participatory planning works fine at any given level. Until I can see where gift economies improve upon an aspect of parecon i don't really see the point of them. I'm just wondering what norms a gift economy would have for determining consumption rights or for remunerating people who produce stuff - would ppl be compensated for effort and sacrifice during labour or output and market power?

KenCat1337 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I always thought of participatory economics under something such as syndicalism as industrial, whereas more steps would have to be put into place to sustain the environment and our health. I'm not a primitivist either, I just mentioned that gift economies are simpler on much smaller scales (such as like in tribes, where they may have been in place).

ppbbs88 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

If gift economy was an improvement on parecon in some respect then a transition might make sense. But that is unclear to me. How does a gift economy improve opon Parecon?

ppbbs88 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I believe in environmental sustainability, but I don't believe we should de-industrialise just for the sake of it. There is no reason why we can't plan an entire economy (production/consumption) co-operatively with everybody getting a say in proportion to the degree they are effected. Where can a gift economy improve on that? There will always be a place for informal neighbourhood swapping, perhaps, but I don't think it should be the basis of an economy small or large.