Fair Trade and Gift Economy
After reading a comment made by Anok of Identity Check, I started looking into fair trade and gift economy.
“I find that for purposes of practicality - being that we live in a world that is not at the moment conducive to Anarchism of any real sort - the mixed economies that we are moving towards are best for the moment.
I myself, prefer fair trade barter and gift economies - keeping in mind that in my ideal Anarchist world the social structure would be very different than it is now.
The other aspect of Anarcho-capitalism that I take issue with is inequality. Class, or caste systems are inherent to capitalism, which is why most Anarchists oppose it. Now, when I talk about economic equality, I mean that each person’s contribution to society is deemed valuable, and equal in worth. Think about it - the factory worker’s job is as important as the waste management guy’s job, which is as important as a mother’s job to raise her child, which is as important as the seamstress, and teh farmer etc and so forth.
Without each part of society working together, society has a very hard time functioning. But in capitalist societies, those whose jobs are unsavory, pay less, or are simply deemed “fringe” or unworthy become the determining factor of that person’s social status in life.”, Anok
He was reacting to a post I made about anarcho-capitalism.
So what is fair trade and gift economy. Let’s ask wikipedia as it is usually a good way to start !
Fair trade is an organized social movement and market-based approach to empowering developing country producers and promoting sustainability. The movement advocates the payment of a fair price as well as social and environmental standards in areas related to the production of a wide variety of goods.
So from what I understood the fair trade system is already here and is working fine to help people in less developed countries. To me this is really good since this is based on the following principles :
- Market Access for Marginalised Producers
- Sustainable and Equitable Trading Relationships
- Capacity Building & Empowerment
- Consumer Awareness Raising & Advocacy
It will therefore help small producers make a better living by including them in the economy and giving them access to the market. All this is based on the idea that a well informed consumer will stand up for fair trade and prefer to help small producers, and it actually work for a part of the population. The system is actually helping a lot of people in less developed countries, so it makes it good !
The only thing I start to wonder is what is the difference between the “fair market value” and the “market value”. In the end both are what the customer is willing to pay for a product. I must have my definitions wrong…
A gift economy is a social theory in which goods and services are given without any explicit agreement for immediate or future quid pro quo. Typically, a gift economy occurs in a culture or subculture that emphasizes social or intangible rewards for solidarity and generosity: karma, honor, loyalty or other forms of gratitude.
So now this is the part that I don’t agree with. It sounds like something wonderfull, but I don’t see how that could work. I know that there is already a part of “gift” in our current system (blood donation, charity, open source…), but in my opinion it can’t be the base of an economy. It can work in a small community, but now that everything is global, how could we switch to a gift economy without going back to the middle age ?
This system is based on the fact that everyone is nice and everyone is equal. It would be great, but we really are not. Jobs are also not equals, some are harder, some require a special strenght, some require special knowledge… and if no one has an incentive to get these skills, in the end no one will do the hard jobs.
Also, if someone want to start a business, he will have to work hard. At some point he could get people to help him out, since it’s impossible to imagine an economy without some kind of employees or partners. Well the guy starting the process will have put a lot of work into his project… but in the end he will get just as much as the guy that just joined the project. So what would he start the project in the first place ?
It would be great if people were just all altruists, but they are not. Some are, and it’s a good thing, but we need to realize that not everyone is ready to work hard for the same thing as the guy next door.
Another point made in this comment was :
The other aspect of Anarcho-capitalism that I take issue with is inequality. Class, or caste systems are inherent to capitalism, which is why most Anarchists oppose it.
To me it is hard to remove all inequalities, and this is sure that capitalism leads to problems of this kind. But there is no way that a global economy could work without problems. We could forget all about the globalization of exchanges and go back in time… but is this really going to happen ? Is this really going to work ?
But the thing that still bothers me about capitalism is not the extra hierarchy : if a hierarchy is prooved to be justified, why abolish it? Of course I’m not saying that all hierarchy are justified, but sometimes it is needed. The thing that bothers me is the fact that an anarcho-capitalist system would fail in providing help to the people in need. I haven’t seen a credible alternative to the state in that case.
If someone knows how a gift economy could work, please leave a comment. Also leave a comment if you know how an anarcho-capitalist economy could help the people in need.
Tags: Anarchism, Capitalism, Economy, Equality, Fair Trade, Gift Economy
November 14th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Excellent! I’m glad to see that you are exploring the various economic systems that we have access to.
I agree, almost, with your concerns about a gift economy. It works wonderfully on a small tribal scale (and there are indigenous tribes that work entirely on gift economies), but you’re right, on a larger scale, it becomes complicated, or darn near impossible on a global scale. I still favor it, however paired with a fair trade market.
I don’t think there’s really any deterrent from using both. After all, mixed economies are all the rage now :D
Certainly, we already use a watered down gift economy in our everyday lives. Usually with family members or friends. We let them have or borrow things they need, with little or no expectation of a return, and yet we do get a return eventually. We often share items or purchases or even work loads with no contracts or agreements to speak of. On a base level, in our personal lives, we tend to be far more altruistic in nature than we are on a larger community scale.
There’s no reason this couldn’t expand beyond immediate family or close friends, with time of course.
But globally you’d still need a fair trade system.
May 2nd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
The way I see it, if everyone is organized socially on a small community level first and foremost (even though we are still technically global), then the gift economy would work on that level - which i think is the most important place for it to work!
But of course, the whole point is that only the communities who wanted a gift economy would work like that, everyone else could do whatever, so long as they didn’t disturb the other communities unwillingly (presumably a sort of safety network of community defense would help to ensure community-rights?).
Oh, and of course, if everything is automated and everything is post scarcity, then the gift economy becomes a lot more viable, because its all about people just taking what they want at the moment and putting in what they want at the moment - it only works if they aren’t thinking at all about possibly running out of resources!
The problem is then storage and transportation of goods - at least superficially. Maybe that’s not as important as we think? If people really want something, they can go get it themselves, traveling from community to community, right? Then people just need to focus on storing goods in their own communities, which shouldn’t be too difficult a concept.
Oh, and in a gift economy, people don’t necessarily have to be all altruists - the whole point is that the net should be able to absorb some lazy people, just like capitalism does today through the state, but at the same time, lazy people can be directly confronted by communities, told to go live off on their own in extreme cases, or simply helped to find something they can do that they like for the community. To me, I guess, the most important part here is that at a close, community level, with traditions in non-hierarchical, consensus driven decision making, most, if not all people, will be able to feel comfortable associating with the social network and giving won’t be considered a duty, but something fun, something creative, something that really energizes them. They aren’t giving to some faceless “society” or the “state”, but their close friends who make up their community.
That’s about all I have to say, but feel free to ask me a question or point out where I might have contradicted myself or lost logical thinking or whatever.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I really liked this post. Can I copy it to my site? Thank you in advance.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Where did you take from such kind of information? Can you give me the source?
August 7th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Social Bookmarks Demon is enormously powerful, 100% automatic social bookmarking software which will build UNLIMITED number of top quality backlinks, send first-class traffic in minutes, increase your affiliate sales, AdSense income and site revenue as much as never. Social Bookmarks Demon combines features of ALL social bookmarking tools available in the market for price of single tool.
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Post trackbacks and comments to remote blogs automatically with Trackback Submitter! This tool will submit your comments to millions of blogs automatically. Trackback Submitter - the most powerful tool on the planet to submit trackbacks automatically!
September 26th, 2009 at 2:21 am
An Alternative to Capitalism?
The following link, takes you to a “utopian” article, entitled “Home of the Brave?” which I wrote and appeared in the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
John Steinsvold
December 7th, 2009 at 3:58 am
This is my first word :)
Hi
December 27th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
May be instead of trying to save the world all at once, we’d rather try all kinds of experiments, including networked gift economy.
I tend to think about it this way : I’d rather live in autonomy from the gaspitalist system, so I’ll try to unplug by getting land with friends (or something of the sort). What we’ll produce and won’t need we can give selectively, for instance to people in the same frame of mind. In sharing our products and experiences we can expect to progressively build some interweaved community of communities, using sale, barter and/or gift economy to enable the production of even high-tech devices.
You’re right in saying that all people are not altruists. But I think you need to understand that it’s not only the tools/system people use that makes the world a decent place to live (or not) : the mentality of those that use them plays a major role. Can a large-scale gift economy work ? In my opinion it can, as long as the quest for autonomy precedes it.
Is there a way to be sure it’s the case ? Archived exchanges, cartographic publication of the needs : implementing these two powerful tools on a networked platform could do the job. They would give the possibility to givers to gain factual knowledge of ‘unknown’ communities/persons others have already interacted with, as well as boost the efficiency of the gift (those who are in the most need would hopefully tend to be the primary receivers). If administrated correctly (and here electronic democracy experiences are needed), they would also prevent leechers from tearing down the whole system.
Finally, a word on gift economy vs. the rest of possible exchanges : as far as I know, gift economy is the only type of economy that doesn’t favor the strongest of the groups proceding to the transaction. If you take barter for instance, the one who has the most to offer (the richer) is also the one who can get the most in the end, hence the one allowed to grow the most - getting even stronger. If we’re looking for cooperation instead of competition, we should be careful on this matter.
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:00 am
Dude… good post! I might actually even listen to what you are saying. Overall your whole blog is great… I am digging it. Peace!
March 5th, 2010 at 7:33 am
Hello! Your post () does so well that I would like to translate it into French, publish on my french blog and link to you. You have something against it? Regards