An economy for all

This article is part of a series: ‘Stigmergy: Systems of Mass Collaboration’.

What we are taught to think of as ‘the economy’ began as the acquisition and use of goods for the household [Aristotle, Topics, 350 B.C.E.], and expanded to focus on the employment of a small niche group of society who made the accumulation and trading of assets their life’s work. ‘Productive’ labour which adds to the value of materials was recognized, but “The labour of a menial servant … adds to the value of nothing.” [Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776] After the Industrial Revolution, Karl Marx popularized the inclusion of labour as a commodity when it was expended for the benefit of capitalists and exchanged for a wage. It was separate from the labour of daily life as “Life for him begins where this activity ceases, at the table, at the tavern, in bed.” [Marx, Wage Labour and Capital, 1847]. Marx pointed out that the exploitation of waged labour was the ultimate source of profit and surplus value in capitalism.

While it was recognized at this point that workers and slaves in capitalist industry were important parts of the economy and were exploited by capitalism, all work done in support of the household and community became invisible. The exploitation of the household and community labourer was the ultimate source of profit and surplus value in waged labour. The exclusion of this labour was perhaps understandable as able bodied, free men were both the backbone of waged labour and the members of the public with political power. According to what Mary Wollstonecraft called “the divine right of husbands” [A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, 1792], women were said to be created for a man’s pleasure and service, his children were his property and women were not persons; their labour was considered rightfully his and their increased labour in his absence not worthy of notice. Marx’s masculinist definition of both labour and capitalist exploitation has continued to define both.

The removal of waged labourers from the household increased both labour and isolation for the unpaid workers at home and entrenched inequality and patriarchy in households. While it was acknowledged that working for capitalists was exploitation, women in traditional roles were doing what they had always done so it was said to be natural to them. Exploitation in a marriage and the worker as a capitalist was not considered. Women were taught to be grateful they were shielded from the exploitation of capitalism when they were unpaid workers at home. Equality activists in the 1970’s fought briefly to have household work paid by western governments as an acknowledgement of its role in supporting capitalism, but the parallel fight for women to be more widely included in the waged working class was far more immediately successful. Political choice in the west now tends to promote free trade capitalism, nationalist capitalism, or capitalist workers. Any support for society is presented as charity, a luxury not part of an economic system.

Removing women from their role as household and community slaves ought to have created a more balanced and enjoyable society but instead it brought far more of the world into the trade economy once occupied by only a small group. As the work in creating and supporting society has rarely been acknowledged and never been valued, we have gross overproduction and gluttony in trade and extreme poverty in service. Some look at the overproduction in trade goods and speak of a post-scarcity economy, where no one will have to work. Work is not scarce, and never will be. There is always an elderly person to visit and support, a child to care for, a garden to tend, art to create, a world to study or a discussion to participate in. There are homes and communities to be created, other people to advocate for, and goods to create for necessity or pleasure. For some, survival is a full time job while others need assistance to survive. The time of leisure those working in trade refer to will never exist for those creating and supporting society.

Some feel that the dysfunction caused by a society given over to trade and support of trade will be remedied by including more women in these careers. These people assume women are inherently more caring, giving people, and if, for instance, women were in the military, killing would be a kinder, gentler pastime. This is absurd, as is proven every time women achieve those positions. Men have also proven constantly that they are just as capable of creating and nurturing a society as women are and prior to the industrial revolution, those were natural roles for them as well. The answer to the dysfunction is not gender balance, but recognition and promotion of the roles that create a rich and rewarding society. Gender balance should be provided by the basic human right to choose one’s life’s work but balance will not change the anti-social nature of a trade economy.

Every society is a continuum of dependencies. With the removal of the labour that was supporting this continuum, dependency became another commodity for exploitation by capitalism. People were taught to disregard the societal debt owed for care received at the beginning of their lives, partly as it was not labour with an acknowledged value. As it was formerly the ‘natural role’ of a wife to provide free labour for a husband, it is still the ‘natural role’ of a parent to provide free care for their children. Adults were now considered dissociated from their origins; the propaganda taught that since they ‘didn’t ask to be born’ they owed nothing to society.

Oddly this lack of obligation for things one didn’t ask for did not extend to aging, sickness or disaster. Now it was incumbent on each labourer to hoard the assets they would need for ‘independence’, a state where they were dissociated from the assistance of society. This ‘independence’ filled lives with fear, uncertainty and doubt and fed massive insurance and charity industries which provide no real service at all. These industries provide an illusion of independence by blocking and allocating access to societal support that has been present all along such as medical care and assistance from society in emergencies. The independence is false, but the dissociation serves to make some feel entitled and others not.

While trade economy is only possible if the rest of society is doing the creation and support work, society can exist quite well without trade. We have conducted society as a trade relationship to an intolerable degree since international trade became widespread until trade now defines every aspect of society. Capitalism has progressed to the point where only a few control the lives of most of the world, an unsustainable imbalance. We can rewind economy based on trade relationships to a point where many will again benefit from it, by debt jubilee, financial collapse or other, or we can create a new post-industrial economy that benefits all members of society and supports the roles society needs.

Decentralized trade economies

society

Peer-to-peer trading is being increasingly explored as a method to cut out corporate control of the trade economy. Peer to peer trading looks like the diagram above. People can trade directly with each other, or through a network, eliminating the central hubs that control distribution and block access of goods. An alternative distribution is the gift economy which follows a similar diagram but does not involve direct exchange; instead goods are given and it is hoped that equivalent goods will be returned. A common model to discourage freeloading in a gift economy is to require a certain level of contribution from each member.

The peer to peer-to-peer / gift economy structure is encouraged as a form of trade suitable to a non-hierarchical society. That depiction is based on an incorrect picture of the society those trading nodes belong to. The difference between a trade relationship and a society with dependencies is obvious to those dependent or unequal in society. Anyone unable to trade an object or act of direct value to a person in power will be left out of a trade network and dependent on charity as shown in the diagram below. The peer to peer model eliminates the corporate hierarchy but leaves the patriarchy alive and well.

Peer-to-peer and gift economies do not allow for society’s input to be inherent in the trade transactions. The value of goods traded is rarely created solely by the trader. Some production builds on previous work, some makes use of assets from the commons and some is produced at the expense of work left for others. Some products may violate human rights of others or damage the environment or the society. Trade relationships relate only to negotiations between individuals and do not reflect impact on an entire society.

Power in peer to peer and gift economies is retained by those that control assets. Not only does this not benefit all of the people who historically don’t benefit in capitalism, it is easy in the diagram below to see how the cycle will progress right back to where we are today as wealth will again concentrate in those who hoard assets and avoid caring for dependents. Peer to peer trade relationships are simply decentralized capitalism. Bringing that system back to its origins with no change will certainly produce the same result over time which it has produced now.

society

In the diagram above, the two traders who have pooled their resources and have no dependents are the most powerful. The one with six dependents is working far harder and obliged to divide their assets by seven. The disabled individual all by himself, and the one supporting twelve children and two elderly parents cannot participate in the trade economy at all and are dependent on charity. Their needs are not inherent in a trade economy.

For every member of society who has something of outside value to trade, there are dependents who have nothing and others doing the internal society building work. All trade must benefit those powerful enough to reciprocate. People providing palliative or geriatric care, working with the mentally ill or children, or with criminals not participating in the economy, will have no means of survival except charity or a resurrection of the institutional structures described in Society vs Dissociation. Those whose own survival takes all of their available resources because of illness, disability or age, those investing years in a long term project with no observable output, or those working in research and other thought based fields also have no inherent value in a peer to peer structure and must have their needs tacked on as a charitable addendum or debt obligation.

A few months ago, an article appeared in a Canadian newspaper. It told the story of a very young woman in Uganda raising six children, all the product of rape, after being abducted at 13 to become a child soldier. The photojournalist gave her a camera and sold the photos she took with it. When he gave her the money, he said “This isn’t a handout. This is money you’ve earned.”

Consider that for one minute. Raising six children she did not ask for while still a teenager herself, being pregnant or recovering for six years, breast feeding all of these children for however many years, providing food, shelter, clothing, safety, medical, educational and other care, all 24 hours a day, seven days a week while in extremely dangerous and uncomfortable conditions and recovering from severe trauma, with no societal support and in fact in danger from society, was not worth payment. She is expected to sacrifice her health and risk her life for a job that was not worth payment. Surviving all the trauma of her life did not entitle her to support from society. Trading a picture was considered providing something of value and contributing to society. This is a society conducted as a trade relationship; she cannot sell her children, therefore her work for them is of no value. It would however be illegal for her to let them die, so she is legally slave labour. Slavery of caregivers and others in this and many other instances is the only reason societies under capitalism can survive.

There are many groups today advocating living a money free existence by using barter, scavenging, peer-to-peer trade and gift economies. Women have been living a money free existence for most of history. Women devote a year of their lives to each pregnancy and recovery period and still do by far the most society building and caregiving work worldwide; in trade economies they have to add additional labour on top of this to create some product of exchange that will appeal to a person in power or they and all of their dependents will be at the mercy of those in power. The peer-to-peer barter or ‘gift’ economy required for many to survive has been called the world’s oldest profession: prostitution in an endless variety of forms, many called marriage. Trade economies are rigged against women in traditional roles and anyone else creating or supporting society. The answer for equality in this system has been for everyone to reject support roles and embrace trade economies.

Peer-to-peer networks provide no improvement for the rights of the weak as shown by a history full of peer-to-peer extortion gangs, paedophile networks and brotherly revolutions which became tyrannical immediately upon seizing power. Peer-to-peer is a survival of the fittest structure which ensures slavery of the weak. The persecution of the weak found in societies without inherent protection is frequently followed by a guardian coup d’état as when women are legally barred from bending over in Swaziland, sitting astride motorbikes in Indonesia or owning cell phones in rural India for their own ‘protection’. In a society with a trade based economy, currency and centralized power offers more protection to the weak than a peer-to-peer structure. This has been seen by the improvement in women’s lives when they have the right to vote and work for pay, and protection is provided (however theoretically) by the state.

When asked how they would allow for dependencies, advocates of peer to peer or gift economies speak of being ‘generous’, ‘giving’ food to the less able, and nearly always also mention condemnation for anyone having more children than they can provide for themselves, addictions, etc. In fact even one child puts the pregnant, nursing and responsible parent at a huge disadvantage and causes them to have to work far harder, for far less, and then need to divide their earnings. A number of dependents like six or more makes it difficult to survive. Many people around the world have far more than six children as well as care for other dependents in society. Even if the birth rate were reduced, every state in the northern hemisphere is experiencing an explosion in the elderly population, and disasters, environmental harm and other factors can cause sudden huge increases in dependents.

The decentralized capitalist structures treat this ‘problem’, in very much the same way as their corporate capitalist predecessors, with a begrudging charity or more hostile superiority and blame for those disadvantaged by their system. The value attached to trade versus creation and support of society is evident in every part of life, from obnoxious business travellers and others treating child caregivers as an untouchable caste to the removal of the elderly and less able to a dependent, burdensome role instead of recognizing the contributions and effort they are still providing or could. The nostalgia for a time before rampant corporate capitalism took hold, when ‘everyone’ benefited from peer-to-peer trade is an entirely masculinist view with a very narrow definition of ‘everyone’. As the male role in society has expanded to include far more caregiving, a trade economy suits no one.

Exploitation of dependents as a commodity

In a world where everything is bought and sold, the weak become the product.

The elderly are taught to live in fear of outliving their rights to care or even a home and food, and the pressure to hoard everything for the time when they can no longer work hangs over the lives of every worker. Since no one can know when they will become ill, when they will die, or what the vagaries of the financial system will bring, this stress colours the lives of everyone in society and makes generosity with any current surplus unlikely.

Insurance corporations which provide nothing of real value to society have sprung up for every eventuality and advertise potential calamity incessantly. The fearful society then buys insurance instead of using their surplus to help others experiencing a current disaster. Sometimes this protection racket is mandated by law, and it is impossible to drive a car, mortgage a house or other activities without paying an insurance company selling fear.

Sickness is controlled not only by the insurance companies but by the health industry which controls choice. The wealthy can afford real health solutions in the form of healthy lifestyles and expensive testing, counseling, therapy and remedies. The poor are either denied health care or fed the most harmful and invasive quick-fix pharmaceuticals and procedures with little to no after care or general wellness assistance. Poor health is an individual responsibility despite frequently or usually being caused by societal pollution, poor nutritional options, unsafe environments, etc.

Caregivers are threatened with no hope for their child’s future if they are not provided with an endless array of products and services tiered by income to determine future status in society. The education caregivers are convinced is necessary for a child to succeed is only necessary to perpetuate the trade economy. The poor are streamed to schools which teach the futility of resistance and the reality that elite options will never be available to them. The wealthy are taught to excel in arts, athletics and academics to no purpose except to appear accomplished in the manner of the old aristocracy. Character and how to benefit the society they are born into, the topics which may be expected to be the only necessary topics for a state education, are almost never taught.

Young adults are persuaded they must mortgage their futures before beginning them by entering overwhelming debt agreements for education which benefits the trade economy. Jobs in labour are frequently sold in the same manner. Governments or agents charge fees for emigrating labour which ensures they will be enslaved by the purchased job for years. This ensures workers can never leave the trade economy as they are indentured for years, captured first by paying for the privilege of working, second by fears for retirement.

However reasonable a legal system may seem, lawyers and an arbitrary system of judicial discretion ensure that the laws work against the poor. It does not matter if the law is on the side of the poor if a rich opponent drags the process out for years and bankrupts them, or ensures they cannot keep up with the legal process or they do not have the expertise or time to fight. Civil courts have succeeded for years in destroying the lives of those the law should have protected by protracted lawsuits and exorbitant fees; now many countries are seeing pre-trial detentions abused in the same manner and prisoners denied their rights to a speedy trial.

Once in prison, people become part of a huge predatory industry. Taxes pay private or state owned corporations set up to warehouse prisoners not rehabilitate them. Many prisons worldwide have the added feature of penal labour where prisoners are paid far below minimum wage and their services sold to other corporations at a great discount. Taxpayers pay to feed and house people who are forced to work as slaves for corporations. There is no incentive in a trade economy to not build and fill as many prisons as possible.

Disasters which require voluntary assistance are preyed upon by NGO’s who build powerful empires by standing between those in need and the society willing to help them. ‘Rebuilding’ efforts are typically an opportunity for multinational corporations to come in and exploit the disaster site with offers of ‘creating jobs’. Disaster NGO’s use money provided by people around the world to support huge industries of developers, security, and disaster relief.

Political unrest supports the global war industry. Once a peace agreement generally meant disarmament. Now when ‘peace’ finally arrives to a region, after extended media advertisements of all the war equipment being used, extensive new mass killing equipment is purchased to ‘ensure peace’. The end of a war, like every other disaster, is a signal for the ‘rebuilding’ efforts of NGO empires and exploitative multi-nationals.

Wide spread and growing human trafficking is a product of a society built on trade relationships. Preying particularly on the weakest members of society, human traffickers also frequent disaster areas looking for those who will not be easily traced. People are captured and sold for paedophiles, prostitution, slavery, military and even ritual killings where their body parts are said to bring wealth and power to the purchaser.

The poor are exploited by capitalism through uncountable fees, fines, and price gouging. When they receive money it is subject to a vast array of charges from the financial industry, for cashing cheques, fines for missed payments, interest on debt, and a wide assortment of tiered services such as credit cards which are impossibly expensive for the poor but provide benefits to the rich. Stores will raise the prices of essentials on days when benefits are paid to ensure the poor pay more. In many cases poor people are expected to ‘volunteer’ in exchange for food or lodging in yet another form of modern slavery. Frequently the lifestyle forced by poverty leaves no legal choices and forces them into the prison system.

In a trade economy, dependency is a product to be exploited and sold to society for maximum profit.

Approval economy

To benefit all of society, an economy needs to be based on service to all of society. In today’s economy, service is bought and sold as a good; instead goods must be provided as a service. An economy benefitting all of society should include service to ourselves, service to others and service to society at large. An elderly person who keeps themselves healthy and fulfilled or an addict working to conquer their addiction may be giving only to themselves but both are making society a much better place and lessening the work for others. To create a giving economy instead of a gift economy, currency is not exchanged between two trading partners but societal approval is awarded from all of society to the giver. Societal approval and trust then entitles each member of a society to receive benefit from that society, through a living and immediate social contract. As a reputation economy allows you to participate in trade, an approval economy allows you to become part of a society.

Trade economies attempt to symbolically represent societal approval by possessions. As monarchs were formerly held to rule by divine right, trade economies insist wealth is due to virtue. While hoarded possessions have been used as a symbol of acceptance, they do not fulfill the real social need for acceptance. The wealthy are instead resented and isolated, shunned by the society they supposedly are the elite members of. Underlying every patriarchal society is the idea that caregivers, children and dependents should be grateful as trade economies see them as burdensome. Those who see a disparity in labour for the family and community are not at all grateful. Family wage earners resent not gaining love and approval for their work in trade, but because trade economy derides unpaid service, they receive no respect for support and creation of the family either. In a trade economy, the currency exchanged separates the giver and receiver; because the currency entitles the receiver to the gift they are not grateful. The human need for social and familial approval is almost never adequately met in trade economies.

As possessions in a trade economy include the service of others, those who do not work for the benefit of others are the powerful. An economy based on societal approval equates not working for others with being excluded or shunned. In an approval based economy, control of assets does not bring power. Assets are not assigned worth until they are contributed to the society. Internal support contributions are not valued less than external trade contributions.

Work in an approval based economy provides society and affinity groups; it is less stressful to be part of the society than to be isolated. Gifts are bonding, both within family and friends and at a community level. In an approval economy gifts are not a tax or state confiscation which leaves nothing; wealth is created by giving. Acceptance by society is based on actions instead of assets. Those dependent in society for some things also have gifts to give, acceptance and approval being the most valuable. Politicians propped up by military and corporate interests hated by the people are the antithesis of societal approval as the mark of acceptance. The dissociation of power in society from service to society provides fertile ground for sociopaths to seize power.

Those creating and supporting society should not need charity, they should have power. An inclusive society does not leave some dependent on the charity of others, or make some work far harder for the same ends. Where there is inequality there will always be tyrants; giving birth, aging or accepting responsibility for another should not be equivalent to accepting a slave role. ‘Women’s issues’, the elderly, the youth and the less able cannot be special problems to be dealt with on the fringes of society. Care for dependents of society is the responsibility of all, and dependents should have power to gift approval to those who assist them. Economy cannot be rigged to favour one special interest group. The solutions for all of society must be inherent within the economic system.

Approval

In an approval economy, effort to benefit society is recognized and acts against society are penalized. Approval is related to assessment of fairness, not the value of the gift. The work of an elderly person talking to a child, a scientist conducting research, a maker providing goods, a child learning and a mentally less able person gardening have no value differences, though the effort expended might. In the chart above, the person with a score of 91 has decided to be a pillar of their society. They probably belong to few other societies, and devote formidable energy to providing for this one, belonging to many working and discussion groups and making themselves available and responsible for the wellbeing of others. The people scored 58 and 52 may be just visiting or may belong to many networks or perhaps they prefer to spend their days on the beach, doing only the basic amount necessary for good standing. They may be entitled to basic essentials like food and lodging but not community resources such as cars and maker labs without additional barter. 55 and 50 expend effort, but also cause harm. Perhaps they are struggling with addiction or mental illness, Their effort is recognized by continued support but at basic levels to restrict their ability to harm others. The person scored at 15 is probably completely shunned by the society, perhaps even imprisoned.

An approval economy is the economy people rely on when they do not use direct coercion, the one typically seen in families and unfunded cooperative and volunteer groups. What the approval ratings mean in terms of benefits earned and whether there are formal values at all varies by society. Being part of a society may require more effort at some times than at others. For instance, not assisting to put out a fire or provide emergency aid to another may be considered an act against society rather than simply a failure to contribute. The benefits of belonging to a society will dictate how motivated people are to contribute to it.

Acceptance and shunning

Acts which cost society should reduce the standing of the destroyer and their access to benefits. Theft reduces the thief’s approval which is their wealth. Acts of aggression against society is reflected back to harm the aggressor’s standing and remove power and privilege. Extreme aggression in violation of the social contract results in shunning, or removal from the benefits of society. Law enforcement (shunning) is inherent in a system of trust networks. In dissociated trade economies, criminals are allowed to fully participate in society until a point when they are completely removed from society. Societal approval and rehabilitation have nothing to do with punishment in a trade economy. Far from being shunned, many criminals are media celebrities.

Acceptance or reintegration into society in an approval economy is a product of subsequent good behaviour and effort expended to increase approval. A person who has lost their good standing would be forced into a trade economy relationship to receive any benefits and have to ‘pay up front’ rather than have the rights of a member of society. Shunning would ensure that laws were true reflections of popular opinion, though shunning must never be used to remove the rights in a social contract by mob rule.

Societies can join in expanded networks which may agree to trust individual reputations across the network. These networks can also agree to shun other societies they do not approve of or assist those they do. Those societies that do not join expanded networks do not receive the benefits of them. People that have good standing across multiple networks can increase their standing in each by providing referrals and knowledge or some networks might agree to blend rankings to create an overall reputation. In this way people who do not work locally can still access the essentials they need locally. An expanded network would also provide an avenue of appeal if a person felt their local society was shunning them unjustly or they were having their basic human rights violated.

The trust networks and reputations which make up an approval economy are part of the daily life of all societies already. The people you invite to eat a dinner you have provided are typically people who have earned your trust and approval. They will usually provide similar benefits to you if they are able, and if they consistently do not they may begin to receive less invitations. We care for grandparents who are unable to reciprocate because we recognize ourselves as part of a continuum of family obligation which cared for us when we were young and will hopefully do so again when we are old. When we ask the identity of an absent group member, their reputation and approval rating is frequently implied in the answer, and sometimes we ask for referrals outright. Even as anonymous participants on some internet sites our input is ranked and voted up and down, contributing to our reputation. Sometimes our internet reputation is already used to introduce us to wider societies providing basic needs, such as couchsurfing.

Approval economies are the natural economies of human society. We separated power from societal approval and exchanged society for trade relationships so long ago most cannot imagine an alternative, but it is still there in the most basic units of society. Economies based on trade relationships with financial systems as tools of coercion and control cannot coexist with peaceful and just societies. Power will be concentrated in able bodied traders and hoarders as long as we continue using trade economies.

31 thoughts on “An economy for all

  1. I have only begun to scratch the surface of what you’ve written here. I need to give it further thought, but in order to continue with momentum of the discussion,.I can tell what are some of my preliminar impressions:

    1) The aim at p2p/trade/capitalism is –in my view– misplaced. Trade –in many places, at least– isn’t/doesn’t have to be a manly activity (in many societies other than perhaps the “developed” world it in fact isn’t). Caregiving doesn’t have to be an exclusively womanly activity, although it has almost exclusively been, until the generation of my parents.(I’m 40, I don’t know what’s your age, there may be a generational gap in perspective too). Trade has nothing to do with caregiving, it’s not a substitute for caregiving, it’s not necessarily detrimental to caregiving, it’s completely orthogonal, although it’s easy to see how abhorrent medicine, healthcare and caregiving in various forms have been perverted. But this is not a problem with the p2p mode of production, p2p trading, or even capitalism in its original sense. It’s a problem with cut-throat neoliberal corporatocracy in particular, that forces absolutely everything to become a good of commercial value. In p2p trade, individuals decide when, what and how to trade. In p2p communities allocation of resources and trading are organised by consensus, and gender dynamics are not of power/submission, thus the community too decides about caregiving

    2) Yes you are right that caregiving is an intense and extremely demanding labour that should have equal society standing with other societal activities. You are right that history is marred with horrendous treatment to those who can’t look after themselves, and horrendous treatment to those who do the caregiving.
    You are right that this needs to be addressed and fixed. But I see it as a separate discussion, conceptually unrelated to trade: we shouldn’t trade with health and care. Precisely for the very reason that I believe those in need should get the care they deserve, society shouldn’t perceive it as charity but devolution of something that has been taken away from them. Health, well-being and safety of the population at large shouldn’t be a “premium feature”, but the level playing field for all.
    In that sense, all, women and men should do caregiving work, not just for their families, but for their communities too. It’s not charity, it’s not “public service”, it’s something we all owe to our human scale communities, and it’s only fair that we return that gift in kind, devolution of the great care we received at an early age and every time we fell sick or injured. How is it possible that modern day people –most women and men– are able to pledge allegiance to a flag, but they won’t pledge allegiance to their communities in this very vital sense? Brainwashed.

    3) The fundamental mistake that modern societies have made is to turn anything and everything into goods of commercial value, caregiving included. But this is not a problem exclusive of capitalism [glaringly, see: China, USSR block, etc.], and it’s not a problem exclusive to caregiving. Medicine, hospitals, mental institutions, institutions for the elderly, kindergartens and other initial education institutions, have all created their own little premium service cartels. This is not created by trade per se, as communities of human scale are perfectly capable of delivering at least equiavalent or comparable basic services themselves and they still trade at the same time. The trail of brainwashing, corruption and perversion leads us to academia, government-made monopolies, selective criminalisation, corrupt medicine profession, oligarchs and their big pharma friends regulating these activities. In such a hierarchically organised system, the only thing that trickles down is corruption and debasement, but money does “trickle up”!. How else did we end up with a “Health Czar” [sic]?. How did we end up with persecution, hounding hackers to death because –in what seems to be a bad parody of old school TV tropes– they “know too much”? Yes, hacking medicine and healthcare is a massive endeavour, and it will only be enabled by human scale communities that are to gather this know-how, and these human scale communities will only be able to survive and flourish if they do all three, 1) hack, 2) trade and 3) caregiving as an integral part of their individual duties to their communities of human scale.

    4) p2p economy. Let’s picture for a moment a community of human scale where all women and men work on the same line of productive business together, say… a tomato plantation. All of them also subscribe to a caregiving ethic within thei community that they place above any other allegiance: all have to care after each other.
    When they produce goods of commercial value, they sell them in the market. When they have a surplus production, they save some of it for the bad times. Some of it they share with friendly communities. Some of it they trade. All the productive members dedicate *at least* 3 hours of their day to community caregiving looking after the elderly, the kids and the sick or injured.
    Not all communities of human scale can produce all the goods they need, but other communities might produce other food, medicine and machinery that yours can’t produce. Some communities may be focused on transportation, communications and long-distance trade. I really love tomatoes, but as much as I love them, they get really tired after a while, there are so many of them I can eat a day. My little niece and I like bananas and they just can’t be produced in our climate. Knowledge is unlimited, it must be shared freely. So all economic expertise, software and hardware design is shared with other communities that reciprocate this philosopy. Resources are scarce, they have to be jointly administered by the community.
    When the community sees a bad winter they will take help from other communities in the form of fuel, electricity or food that others have.
    Because our ideal community has helped others in the past, they have generated credit, and will be able to obtain the products they need, having acquired their help in advance. A community that has enough surplus to run for an extended period should forgive accumulated debt, or use its accumulated wealth to help fund an independent child community on the same foundation when the current one threatens to grow beyond human scale. Interest rates are expressly forbidden in products and services that don’t have an intensive labour component. Trading is expressly forbidden in caregiving, knowledge transfer and educational activities. All men and women must engage in the latter core community activities.

    This is still capitalism. It’s not predatory, it’s not immoral by any current standard of immorality, and it’s not sexist. It’s capitalist, just not petty bourgeois, it’s a p2p organisation, just not a heinously sexist one. Although it’s hard to maintain stability of such a community in the world we live today, I’ve lived that good life from time to time and I just know it’s real and achievable.
    Most people are just too brainwashed to desire a good life, so it’s an uphill battle to convince the many bedazzled ones sandwiched in a 1984/Brave New World society.
    But it’s a fight worth giving.

    There is more, but I will keep thinking of other ideas you’ve worked on here for which I still don’t have an answer (like security, prison system, etc.) and others that I’m still unsure about like the role of the media, journalism and entertainment in such communities, which will probably be a topic of contention as these have a lot to do with freedom of expression, even those expressions that go against the moral order of a p2p community like the one I described.

    Like

    • Hi estigmergica.

      Hmm, that’s a long comment to answer! I am also having a difficult time pulling your arguments out, please forgive me if I missed them. A couple specific points:

      1. Nowhere in the above did I speak of ‘manly’ and ‘womanly’ activities, I specifically said repeatedly there was nothing in those roles inherent to either gender.
      2. There is nothing in p2p trade that implies consensus, gender dynamics, or anything except p2p trade. If these were added features they would be left to the discretion of traders.
      3. In my argument above, Marxism is still capitalism.
      4. Your system seems to rely on extremely heavy handed coercion that dictates people’s labour and forces everyone to fill the same roles regardless of inclination or ability. I believe that was called communism.
      5. You don’t address the arguments against trade except to say that profiting from societal support is verboten and fairness will be achieved by having all members of the community sharing equally in all roles. (Pregnancy? Breastfeeding? Getting up with someone else’s newborn or caring for a dying spouse that only wants to be with family?)

      For the rest, all I can say is I disagree for the reasons above. P2p and trade economies have been creating the same structures for thousands of years. I don’t feel any need to try the same thing again and hope for a different result. Your text seems to say “But we’ve changed, this time it will be different,” with no evidence or reason to believe that. (Actually, I’m hoping you mean that. What you really seem to say is people are awful, but this time it will be different. Then I’m really at a loss.) You also have made no arguments that I can find against an approval economy. Trade economy is an abusive system that has never worked, and there is no logical reason for it to work. As I said above, dependents do not need charity, they need power.

      I think there was more to your argument that I am not getting here. Please feel free to clarify! :-.)

      Like

    • With all good will, you didn’t understand the main problem. As long trade is the base it will overpower all alternatives. You cannot have both. As long you believe the alternative is anykind of socialism a la China and not some still to develop you will keep capitalism and trade for our only fate – shift happens.

      Like

      • Kahl, are you replying to me or estigmergica? Because I think we agree?

        Economies based on trade relationships with financial systems as tools of coercion and control cannot coexist with peaceful and just societies. Power will be concentrated in able bodied traders and hoarders as long as we continue using trade economies.

        Like

  2. Just as @vruz, I’ve only begun to scratch the surface.

    I’d like to add my thoughts on the transition towards a new ‘economy for all’—be it an approval economy or a p2p one as described by @vruz or any mixture of those and other concepts.

    Picturing a financial collapse in the next couple of years (which I regard as quite probable), I’m sure people wouldn’t be ready for a beneficial new way of societal organisation.

    It is my opinion that the majority of people’s minds needs to grasp an idea first, before an attempt towards implementation can be successful. Imposing a new system upon people who haven’t really thought about it (that includes me) will lead nowhere, and getting people to appreciate the kind of society we’re discussing here will take a long time.

    This sort of was the introduction necessary to explain why I really like the idea of full reserve banking, as proposed by @PositiveMoneyUK (http://www.positivemoney.org/). It could prevent the financial collapse, which—see above—I think would be a good thing. And it is something that many people
    can relate to in the short term, given their experiences with the ongoing financial crisis.

    It won’t solve all problems and in mid-to-long term I’d rather see a real ‘economy for all’, but I regard it a prerequisite for many problems to be solvable at all.

    Two more reasons I like @PositiveMoneyUK:

    (1) It could give people a feeling of society’s destiny being is society’s hands; a notion that is pretty much absent in all mainstream discourse since “history stopped” after breakdown of the Soviet Union.

    (2) They (the people at positivemoney.org) are doing an excellent job, in that they focus on the “mechanical act” of fixing the monetary system, strictly separating that part from any political inclination. The lack of buzzwords on their website that could be interpreted as referring to e.g. the “right” or the “left” is absolutely refreshing. They provide an example for a group focusing on one particular issue and attempting to sort that one out in a manner unrelated to group-think or ideology or any of those detrimental but nevertheless still virulent concepts.

    These two points could be very educational to society as a whole, and—arguably—full reserve money would not cement capitalism by removing it’s most conspicuously painful spikes but lay a foundation for further improvements, i.e. for tackling the problems that are harder to fix than a man-made financial system.

    Like

  3. Me too just read it with speed and need to read again. But for the moment I feel like this is the correct global emancipatory and revolutionary way of thinking of economy, labour and distribution. We might need to see the difference between peer production and p2p distribution (based on trade) of goods and services. The way I understood p2p production has a ‘giving’ aspect similar to what you describe here but not necessarily with moral perspective. I have seen this as a problematic, different than Michel Bauwens, since he sees it as a positive thing. When you free the meaning of labour by breaking through the meaning developed and stamped on human creativity, during the capitalist masculine political economy you face the problem.
    If you think of p2p distribution / trade separate from p2p governance and production which are the other essential part of the whole of ‘p2p mode of production’ or p2p economy your critics is right. So I think for the situation of today without the working genuine p2p governance and production p2p distribution would only serve to replace the elite. For an economy that works for all (economy of the commons) we need principles based on morality/ethics, and ‘giving’. We can not rely on p2p systems with invisible hand. Giving should be the way we reproduce ourselves and we need to builds relationships and socialisation mechanisms to ensure this for all. This is necessary in order to be able to bypass the distributed capitalism project -growing every day to replace the old boys capitalism- and build the real another worlds.

    Like

  4. Hi Orsan :-.)

    Thank you for your feedback. I am very interested in your thoughts as I know you put a lot of time and research into this. My use of the term p2p is quite literal as shown in the diagram above. I know many are thinking of p2p more in terms of a gift economy, but the power in a gift economy is still retained by those who control the assets as explained above. I don’t think the p2p foundation shares my views, perhaps Michel will confirm?

    There is no limit to examples of natural p2p governance as it has been our model for thousands of years. In my experience it usually looks like this. It is all very well to say ‘yes, but this time it will be different’, but as long as the power is retained by the same people, dependents are at the mercy of others. I am looking for horizontal power, not charity.

    A giving (verb not noun) economy is far more what I have in mind, but only if it takes into account the three levels of contribution. “An economy benefitting all of society should include service to ourselves, service to others and service to society at large.” An elderly person who keeps themselves healthy and fulfilled or an addict working to conquer their addiction may be giving only to themselves but both are making society a much better place and lessening the work for others.

    Like

  5. Pingback: An economy for all | Peer2Politics | Scoop.it

  6. Great stuff. Keep up the good work.

    A key interest of mine has been the issue of technological unemployment, which has been gaining visibility in the popular press and in books by Martin Ford (“The Lights in the Tunnel”), Brynjolfsson and McAfee (“Race Against the Machine”), and Al Gore (“The Future”). It seems likely the wages-for-work model currently driving the economy may be running out of steam due to robosourcing (Gore’s coinage). With fewer and fewer trade jobs available, the “social work” you highlight is becoming more prominent. Your Approval Economy ideas may help in transition. Maybe government stipends (derived from taxes on capital?) can be distributed to all citizens based on “approval points” along the lines you sketch above?

    I’ve been wrestling with the problem of how to properly value people in a stipend-based model, and you provide a terrific perspective.

    Like

    • An approval economy will require a lot of thinking to strike a balance between mob rule shunning and hierarchical control … Probably a base amount would have to be tied as a right for every member of society unless they violate the social contract by breaking laws (as proved in court)? Then it could be topped up by discretionary approval credit from people … but we also have to think about people who overlap societies, their work is global but they eat at home. Much to consider, and it would vary by community. Keep me posted on how your wrestling goes!

      And thanks very much for the feedback. :-.)

      Like

  7. This is one of the most powerful articles I’ve ever read. I appreciate you for writing and sharing this! Your approval economy is highly aligned with game design, which is the basis behind an evolutionary economic model I’ve created called Producism. Would love to chat sometime and share ideas!

    To a new economy!

    Like

  8. Pingback: Approval Economy: In Practice | GeorgieBC's Blog

  9. Much to reply to here! First of all, I want to thank-you for doing the hard work of attempting design for a new world (no, not a New World Order you paranoids!), because we certainly need one. The old world is dying right before our eyes, and denial serves none of us.

    In my opinion, your analysis of the weaknesses inherent in all these systems is breathtakingly spot on. I struggle with some of the outcome conclusions for the Approval Economy model though. The biggest challenge would appear to be consensus about the behavior we should assign value to.

    As you agreed above in one of your replies, the Approval Economy only works when the “society” you are living in shares your values as common.

    “To create a giving economy instead of a gift economy, currency is not exchanged between two trading partners but societal approval is awarded from all of society to the giver.”

    This attribute is the source of all other problems with social engineering systems. I don’t see “trade” as the core problem with our systems, I see it as a symptom of the underlying problems you highlighted so well. Trade, in it’s ideal form is an equal exchange of energy, whether we are speaking of the trade of physical goods or the trade of emotional support. Mutual Aid is one concept that does address the charity problem, and I’m not sure whether you’ve tackled that option in other writing or not.

    I don’t believe we live in a world that is homogenized enough for one set of societal standards to fit all. There are very few intersections that need large areas of agreement, and I would invite a conversation about not using ONE system everywhere, but using the systems that make the most sense at each intersection of commonality. Those areas of life that are not intersectional may be left independent – and, for me, increasing these areas of individual and/or “small” community independence is key to us being able to move out of abusive, patriarchal systems. Whether we are speaking of a Nanny State, Zeitgeist system, or a Feudal Dictatorship, the common denominators are “dependence” (and) on a source of “accumulated power” – represented by goods and the right to punish others for non-conformity (law and war).

    Economies that engage in giving without asset and weapons redistribution beforehand are indeed perpetuating the same patriarchy we are attempting to move away from. I have engaged in the giving economy via Potlach and Freecycle. Though these both prove to be rewarding actions on many levels, they are not suitable for sustaining an entire population or economy. They are a style of asset distribution suitable for a specific set of of needs, distribution avenues, and social norms.

    My ideas about how to achieve an equitable and just economy are still evolving and have not been committed to linear thought, much less the more formal organization involved in writing! I am what is known as a disorganized thinker in that I see patterns and relationships very clearly, but as spontaneous bursts of intuitive connectivity rather than reasoned, linear extrapolations. I look forward to continuing the discussion!

    Like

  10. Pingback: P2P Foundation's blog » Blog Archive » The fallacy of the dream of Decentralized (P2P) Trade Economies

  11. Hi Kaymee!

    Thank you for the great reply. “Consensus about the behavior we should assign value to” – yes, that is the important part, the basis of our social contract which ought to contain the principles all law rests on. That is the only way shunning is a natural or moral punishment in society.

    “Trade, in it’s ideal form is an equal exchange of energy”; precisely why it does not work for those with no energy to give.

    “I don’t believe we live in a world that is homogenized enough for one set of societal standards to fit all.” Absolutely agree, and it would be awful if we did. I would like to strive for Governance by User Group which is defined more in upcoming article on property ownership.

    Like

  12. Pingback: P2P Foundation's blog » Blog Archive » The Approval Economy as an alternative to P2P Trade economies

  13. Pingback: News, analysis, action | GeorgieBC's Blog

  14. Pingback: #Sociopathes, #psychopathes et #MangeMorts #Burkina #Faso #Gabon #Togo #tginfo #Afrique #Africa | peuples observateurs 2014

  15. Pingback: Comment nous en sommes arrivés à être dirigés par les #MangeMorts #OPDeatEaters @OPDEAFRICA | peuples observateurs 2014

  16. Pingback: Los Sociopatas, Psicópatas #OpDeatEaters | Venezuela y El Mundo

  17. Pingback: Zero for Conduct (1933) If…(1968) | Stanley W. Rogouski

  18. Pingback: How We Came To Be Ruled By Death Eaters Reblog | WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

  19. Pingback: Abel Danger has Investigated This for Eight Years – Torturting and Killing Children for Entertainment – UK Establishment: We’re Coming for You – Triangular Trade: Weapons, Drugs and Sex Drives the Global Economy – The Death E

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s