cross-posted from: https://lemmy.perthchat.org/post/309225
Trying to read/watch/etc a little on it to try to establish a vague food swap with friends. Specifically no cash.
Nobody is rich enough to engage in unilateral mutual aid/donations.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.perthchat.org/post/309225
Trying to read/watch/etc a little on it to try to establish a vague food swap with friends. Specifically no cash.
Nobody is rich enough to engage in unilateral mutual aid/donations.
I’d wager that classical barter is deeply against anarchist principles and ethics, as it fundamentally rests on a logic of quantifying social relations and turning them into debts.
By “classical” barter, I mean a kind of system where you’ve created a whole system of measuring the value of one good against tens or even hundreds of others. E.g. a can of beans is worth a carton of milk or half a steak, a chocolate cheesecake is worth five bowls of porridge etc.
More importantly though, classical barter has actually never existed in history. Economics textbooks – and economists, of course – have perpetuated the myth that it did, mostly to suit their own narratives about the origins and nature of money.
Instead, we overwhelmingly find people engaging in “gift economies” or relations of reciprocity with each other, where the logic of quantification is mostly absent.
Not saying it’s any easier, though! And in any case you don’t wanna believe someone (like me) who spouts theory and has almost no real world experience :) ultimately any experiments you actually try out are way more impactful than my comment!
I’m thinking more like can of beans same value as milk = steak = cheese cake etc
And some good faith to prevent friends from trying to like give someone else like a raw deal. So like realistically some portion of gift economy, like can of beans for a steak, can of beans person later on gives steak person a “good trade” later on to sorta balance it out
I think it’s a great idea. Could be worth it as an experiment. As you say, good faith is key – once you have that, you’ll be willing to manage the conflicts that organically arise and evolve with them. Ultimately that’s preferable to just reading theory, IMO.
deciding the relative value of things is deeply personal and very important if we care about individual people! it’s not capitalism to not want to trade away beans for steak if you can make steak at home easily, or maybe you’re happy to take a ‘bad’ trade because the person you’re trading with needs some extra help.
you’re right that basically no one did ‘classical barter’ trading apples for oranges directly, but there are numerous examples of people freely trading in credit (debt) over a variety of timescales and social systems.
it’s not hierarchical to decide for yourself what you want and what you’re willing to give up in relation with other people, in fact i’d say understanding the necessity of that is a fundamental part of anarchism.
where exchange gets tricky is when it’s coerced, or the circumstances surrounding it are coercive. if there’s an authority figure putting a gun in your back demanding money every month for the privilege of living in your own house, then trading with others to “earn” that money will definitely be a bad situation for you. it’s the specific enforcement of properties as we know them under capitalism that’s the problem, not exchange in the abstract.
Oh yes, I agree with you on both counts:
My point is that the more such decisions are quantitative in nature, the more like reciprocal relations are to turn into mercantile or even hierarchical ones.
There’s also the distinction between personal and public spheres. Value systems across either sphere can be radically different, but that’s a whole other can of beans (no pun intended).