[GiftEconomy] FW: Re: questioning the gift economy

[fran k]

----Forwarded Message----
From: frank_bowman at yahoo.co.uk
To: tereza at retrometro.com
Sent: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:33 BST
Subject: Re: questioning the gift economy

Hi Tereza. It is refreshing to read what you said. On your site the article on wage slavery too. I agree with you. 

We all live on the forced free gifts of others below us in the way you describe. As well as the tea picker and processor too. 
That is the reality. And that is why the gift Economy is so important, & your description of how we need land. With land & sharing we can end this cycle. By understanding & being responsible. I can only put so much writing on the phone!  Here is an essay on the gift economy. Its at http://p2pfoundation.net/Gift_Economy 
Genevieve gives the analysis. And Heidi Abendroths writing on Matriarchical societies is enlightening too. 
 Genevieve Vaughan on the difference between gifting and exchange
"One particularly important loop in the thread of gift giving is the double gift: giving in order to receive a return gift - what we call 'exchange'. Exchange requires quantification and measurement, an equation between what is given and what is received to the satisfaction of both parties. Our present economic system is based upon exchange. 
Exchange is at odds with gift giving. The competition which is characteristic of Capitalism pushes the exchange way against the gift way. In fact two paradigms or worldviews are formed, one based on exchange and the other on gift giving. 
One of the ways the exchange paradigm wins its competition with the gift paradigm is by defining everything in terms of its own aspects of categorization, competition, quantification and measurement, at the same time hiding the activity of the gift paradigm. This concealment is an important factor in degrading gift giving and making it inaccessible, both as a continuing activity and as an interpretative key for the understanding of other aspects of life. 
Because exchange is so much a part of our lives we use it as a strong metaphor for understanding everything. For example, we may consider an interaction to be a loving exchange when instead it is taking turns in giving and receiving. We are not usually conscious of the fundamental distinction between giving in order to receive and giving in order to satisfy the need of the other. 
Giving in order to receive - exchange - is ego-oriented. It is the satisfaction of one's own need that is the purpose of the transaction. Giving to satisfy another's need is other-oriented. These two motivations constitute the basis of two logics, one of which is intransitive (exchange), the other of which is transitive (gift giving). 
Exchange creates and requires scarcity. If everyone were giving to everyone else, there would be no need to exchange. The market needs scarcity to maintain the level of prices. In fact when there is an abundance of products scarcity is often created on purpose. An example of this is the plowing under of 'overabundant' crops (which may happen even when people are standing by who are hungry). On a larger scale scarcity is created 1. by the channeling of wealth into the hands of the few who then have power over the many; 2. by spending on armaments and monuments which have no nurturing value but only serve for destruction and display of power; and 3. by privatizing or depleting the environment so that the gifts of nature are unavailable to the many. The exchange paradigm is a belief system which validates this kind of behavior. Individuals who espouse it are functional to the economic system of which they are a part. Exchange is adversarial, each person
 tries to give less and get more, an attitude which creates antagonism and distance among the players. Gift giving creates and requires abundance. In fact, in scarcity gift giving is difficult and even self sacrificial while in abundance it is satisfying and even delightful. 
Language is based on gift giving. This hypothesis breaks through the taboo against using nurturing (gift giving) as the model for other kinds of human activity and it has important consequences. If language is based on nurturing and if thinking is at least partially based on language then thinking is at least partially based on nurturing.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:05 BST Tereza Coraggio wrote:

>Hi, Frank
>
>Thanks for your respectful reply to my note. If you're on my website, my shows are sorted by theme under Third Paradigm in the menu bar. All of the shows on economics come up first, if you want a shortcut to them. Thanks for being interested in pursuing them further, Frank.
>
>The basic question that I wanted to get back to is: if money isn't a valid form of exchange (which we both agree it isn't) what gives you the right to the tea you "gave" to your friend? Did you give away something that didn't belong to you in the first place? Is that a gift from you or is it a "gift" from the tea-grower to both of you - a gift that was stolen from them?
>
>If money isn't valid and property ownership depends on money, in our society, what is it that we really own? My answer would be our time and labor. That's the only thing that's rightfully ours. I also believe we have a right to secure tenure on the land - which was stolen in the US from the indigenous peoples and which has been stolen from us since through property taxes and mortgages.
>
>I'm not rejecting the gift economy. But I think that we should be defining a variety of economic goals that we have, and choosing the system that most enhances that goal, rather than one system for all circumstances. It may be cash, a tax-deductible donation, a local currency, an investment in products not profit, barter, my charitrade model, or the gift economy.
>
>I often feel that this group starts with the position that the gift economy is the answer, no matter what the question is. I think that the gift economy is valid when you're giving what truly belongs to you - your time and labor. If you're a farmer or a miner, you can give the products of your labor without qualms. But otherwise, if you give the product of someone else's labor, you're giving what was first stolen. How does the gift economy address this?
>
>Thanks for the conversation,
>
>Tereza
>
>
>On Mar 28, 2011, at 4:17 AM, fran k wrote:
>
>> Hi Tereza.
>> 
>> Thanks. My, it is interesting to get a preliminary sight into your thinking. I also googled you and got to your website to read some of your information.
>> 
>> It is good that you have an angle on money from the angle that you do. Too many dont. And it is important. I shall read and think on it for some time, as it forms a part of my learning from years ago, and it is time to revisit and brush the dust off those files so to speak. And that is not to arrogantly say that I have grown past it, but rather it forms a very important part of the whole, which must be taken account of.
>> 
>> Past of what you are talking about the mechanism of Usury and rent. Pay up or die! I call that the forced exchange. In other words we are forced into having to do an exchange. And I tend to express the view that that this tax, lies behind the reason as to why we exchange. (Exchange, trade, from my perspective being a bad thing as regards lifes needs, because of the inherent scarcity of it). But you are further expressing that as the mechanism of 3rd World debt, and the wealth coming up to us from poorer countries, and the part we as individuals play in that through our purchases. It is a valid perspective, and needs thinking about, as it is good deep thinking.
>> 
>> The author of the piece in the Guardian is coming from his angle and I feel that is that money is exploitative and wrong per se. So that any trade and money system creates scarcity and shortage in any circumstance. That being so, then, he does address the issue from his angle to go on to say that all freeconomy and gift economy activities and projects are the answer, and anything that we all can do to pursue those ends will reduce our dependence on money.
>> 
>> He doesnt consider the option of fair trade at all. Me too. It is a pipedream. Never possible. Utopian. Only possible in theory. In talk. Sounds sensible. Exchanging surpluses, rice for beans etc. Not in reality. In reality it is never ever fair.
>> 
>> Where I have agreement with you possibly is that in our natural cultural group tribal, large family size, we share and there is a gift economy. And we would tend to trade with other groups that we are distant from, and who we as a group distrust.
>> 
>> Exchange is a relationship of distrust. Sharing is a relationship of trust.
>> 
>> So for me, in order to ensure that all in a community are fed, requires gift economy system, not trade.
>> 
>> Trade may happen between communities.
>> 
>> But trade does not feed all. The reason is distrust and distance, and one will always want the better out of the deal, and competitive ability will win, which sets up a hierarchy of few winners to many losers, and where this same separation is a lack of empathy for the losers plight. There is noconcern for the other, in this trade relationship.
>> 
>> Trade is the cause of scarcity and insufficiency and hunger. It is not a solution to a world in which we would wish everyone to be fed and wish everyone to be able to pursue their likes and to grow to fulfill their abilities and joy. And so I agree with the author.
>> 
>> But that is not to say that your analysis does not get to the heart of the Usury, rent, tax matter. Which from my perspective is also the reason why we do what we do.trade! Trade needs to fizzle some, and sharing, to rise!
>> 
>> :) frank
>> 
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:47 BST Tereza Coraggio wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi, Frank
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the response. I'll answer in line in blue below:
>>>> 
>>>> Id love to respond, but before I do, I have to understand fully what you are saying, so below I have put my questions to what you said, which I write in italics:
>>>> It doesn't, imo, get to the root of the matter of the exploitation that backs our money, and that a money backed by labor, food and goods, community, or charity would have different results.
>>>> I don't understand what you are saying here, could you explain it to me in a different way. What in your opinion is the exploitation that backs our money? Are you saying that we can have something called fair exchange?
>>>> In Ellen Brown's book Web of Debt, she talks about the nobles being patrons of the arts and how, by giving everyone a living stipend, everyone could have this same ability to use their time for high pursuits. But the nobles didn't back their money with their own labor. The money that the nobles gave to artists was backed by the labor of the peasants, who grew and produced the food and goods. Through their militaries the nobles forced the peasants to pay taxes in gold or else they took their land. And so, rather than making products for their own benefit or for trade with other people making real goods, the peasants had to sell them for money to pay their taxes. The artists who worked for the nobles got money that would have been worthless except for its ability to buy products from the peasants. The peasants gave their products to the artists to get money to give to the nobles so the cycle could start again. Likewise, our money is backed by our
>> "entitlement" to take the products of someone else's labor without giving any of our labor in return. Through debt and violence other countries are forced to work for US dollars rather than their own trade currencies. Our money would be worthless unless it gave us access to this pirate's booty of exploitation.
>>>> In order to move from a society divided into consumers and producers we need, I think, a mechanism that gives an incentive for this.
>>>> I don't understand this, surely there are always consumers and producers. If I make the tea, others consume it. Or if someone else has made a pot of tea, I will be a consumer, when I pour my cup out! What do you mean?
>>>> Good example. You don't make the tea. You merely prepare it. Someone else has grown the trees, harvested and dried the leaves, processed and packaged the tea. What has your labor, or the labor of the person you pour the tea for, ever done for the person who made the tea? What have you made for them in return? Can the money they received for their tea buy anything that you - or anyone else in the developed world - do for a living?
>>>> In the US, money prevents us from being producers because no one can afford the land, property taxes, insurances, licenses, and labor costs for help. A gift economy for services, labor, and sharing tools makes sense within a community - if you can get around the laws that use liability to prevent it.
>>>> Oh, this is my problem with money. It socially excludes us, it causes scarcity!  and in the case of food - death!   I am very interested to know what you mean about liability that prevents it? (sounds like you mean insurance costs here)
>>>> Sort of. If I want to share my labor helping on a chicken ranch, they can get fined $1000 a day for not putting me on their payroll and worker's comp. If I loan out my chicken plucker, as I did today, and somehow you break a finger on it, nothing protects me from liability even though I did you a favor.
>>>> A global gift economy for medicines and "intellectual property," including anything that can be put on the web, makes terrific sense.
>>>> I agree. Lovely to share. To give to others and so enhance all “our” lives. :-)
>>>> But I don't think that the gift economy is the solution to all the problems that our exploitation-backed money has created.
>>>> How not? Are you seeing the gift economy as a small local thing, not able to create big changes?
>>>> It's the local level where it doesn't work - in the virtual global world it works fine. But you can't give what doesn't belong to you in the first place. When you buy the tea, you've paid your debt to the shop owner. You've paid the distributor and corporate manufacturer, all of whom exist in the same economy you do. But the tea grower is half a world away. If her labor has been forced because the corporation took all the land, or imposed debt and taxes, or used violence, then the tea doesn't really belong to the manufacturer or distributor or shop owner to sell. And you still owe a debt to the people whose lives were destroyed in order to force them to grow your tea.
>>>> We also need a currency that reverses the exploitation, before we can even get to a trade-backed currency.
>>>> Trade backed currency? What is that, is it , does it relate to your first sentence at the top?
>>>> I don't think a trade-backed currency is possible in the US because we're a services labor force - we don't make products. What I've been working on is a charity-based currency. In example, say we provide services in return for people making donations to int'l human rights organizations. For every $50 in donations a Fair Trade 10 is generated which can circulate in the local economy with a variable value. If used for food, it's worth $10. If used for products or services, it's worth from $20-$30. But when used for the kind of education we want to encourage, it's worth $40. So it facilitates trade within a community based a mutual regard for people.
>>>> What are your thoughts, Frank?
>>>> Tereza
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --- On Sun, 27/3/11, Tereza Coraggio <tereza at retrometro.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> From: Tereza Coraggio <tereza at retrometro.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [GiftEconomy] Great little article. Puts it into context.
>>>> To: "frank bowman" <greenwomble at googlemail.com>
>>>> Cc: gifteconomy at lists.gifteconomy.org
>>>> Date: Sunday, 27 March, 2011, 16:28
>>>> 
>>>> It has a good analogy about representative government making us like a rat in a maze running from one party to the other but without an exit because both serve the party of money. It doesn't, imo, get to the root of the matter of the exploitation that backs our money, and that a money backed by labor, food and goods, community, or charity would have different results.
>>>> 
>>>> In order to move from a society divided into consumers and producers we need, I think, a mechanism that gives an incentive for this. In the US, money prevents us from being producers because no one can afford the land, property taxes, insurances, licenses, and labor costs for help. A gift economy for services, labor, and sharing tools makes sense within a community - if you can get around the laws that use liability to prevent it. A global gift economy for medicines and "intellectual property," including anything that can be put on the web, makes terrific sense. But I don't think that the gift economy is the solution to all the problems that our exploitation-backed money has created. We also need a currency that reverses the exploitation, before we can even get to a trade-backed currency.
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> Tereza
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 27, 2011, at 4:43 AM, frank bowman wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Gets to the heart of it. The issue. And the why and how to act. Link
>>>>> from demonetize:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/26/protest-rule-of-money
>>>>> 
>>>>> :)frank
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>