A Serious Critical Discussion:

[Rich_Mahogany]

A lot of what seems to happen on this board turns into ridiculous nonsense, I think, but I have a serious criticism to put forward that, hopefully, will help clarify my understanding of anarchism. It's not that I'm against anarchism, it's just that I feel as if I've either misunderstood something or there is some kind of ludicrously obvious flaw in some theories. (I say this because I fear that this could turn into some sort of ad hominem flame war).

Anyway, let's get down to it: in a "gift economy," in which goods and services are freely distributed based on the principal of trusting that the individual receiving the goods will somehow come back to return the favor (unlike a barter system, as I understand it, because there does not necessarily have to be a direct exchange), what's to stop someone from consuming everything and exhausting the scarce resources we have?

I ask this, particularly, because I find it hard to imagine that people living in a consumerist society (including myself) would ever be able to consume a small enough amount so that everyone would be semi-equal or at least so that everyone would be able to survive. So that's it, and thanks for taking the time to read this.

[|Y|]

Rich_Mahogany,

A lot of what seems to happen on this board turns into ridiculous nonsense, I think, but I have a serious criticism to put forward that, hopefully, will help clarify my understanding of anarchism.

If you're talking about the incessant spats over trivialities (particularly as it relates to people having personality conflicts), I hear ya man. But it's all good, there's plenty here to weed out the cruft fairly easily.

It's not that I'm against anarchism, it's just that I feel as if I've either misunderstood something or there is some kind of ludicrously obvious flaw in some theories.

I think that most strains of anarchism are "ludicrously obviously flawed." This results in that cruft I was talking about before, because I think for myself, and don't fall for more unrealistic revolutionary approaches. But that doesn't mean that 1) all strains of anarchism offer nothing or 2) that anarchism in and of itself is impossible.

Anyway, let's get down to it: in a "gift economy," in which goods and services are freely distributed based on the principal of trusting that the individual receiving the goods will somehow come back to return the favor (unlike a barter system, as I understand it, because there does not necessarily have to be a direct exchange), what's to stop someone from consuming everything and exhausting the scarce resources we have?

The post-scarce viewpoint, which I adhere to, suggests that there's an upper level of consumption, which society can meet. You don't have to "return favors" so much "be a part of the environment." That is, your contribution is passive, rather than active. You have to poop sometime, right? Well your waste is very useable in order to make feedstocks to grow food.

In nature, when a population overuses its resources, it dies out until that population sustains itself (plagues and the like). Humans are distinct from other animals in that we can intelligently manage our resources, and given that we're not having big population cullings yet, it stands to reason that our current level of consumption is sustainable (I can of course throw math out there that would validate this point of view, I'm just expressing a different perspective).

Now I can imagine "heavy consumers" who do consume a lot, but as long as they're not hoarding and actively preventing people from having access to resources, I see nothing wrong with it. Eventually the consumer will hit a consumption limit.

I ask this, particularly, because I find it hard to imagine that people living in a consumerist society (including myself) would ever be able to consume a small enough amount so that everyone would be semi-equal or at least so that everyone would be able to survive.

Well, when you come down to it, human energy usage is the basis for all consumption. We use about 500 exajoules of energy, and get about 10k times that much from the sun. Algae use 5 times as much energy as us, so it stands to reason that we haven't actually hit an upper limit, yet. So a post-scarce gift society would not hinge on these, arguably arbitrary, limitations.

[Rich_Mahogany]

In response, I suppose I picture people going to grocery stores and just pigging out in the most insane and fiendish way possible, I think that if suddenly there are no "legally enforced" boundaries people wouldn't know what to do. But then again, I tend to be a little more cynical about people than I should be.

Yeah, it's all very plausible, I guess, the real question is how do we get there? Anarchism seems so... rational to me, yet it is such a minority view. It sort of fakes me out as though, there must be something wrong here .

[ThisCoffeeSucks]

I've found that people don't often stop to examine their assumptions. It's a valuable skill if you want to avoid mistakes when trying to understand not just anarchism, but any ideology. I've found also that it's easier to spot others' assumptions than your own. That's why discussion is so valuable.

So, let's examine yours:

...what's to stop someone from consuming everything and exhausting the scarce resources we have?

...I think that if suddenly there are no "legally enforced" boundaries people wouldn't know what to do.

See, you've taken it for granted that people are selfish and inconsiderate, and incapable of self-restraint. And you know what? Those are not unreasonable assumptions. Looking around the world today, one can hardly be blamed for being a bit cynical about humanity. But could there be hidden assumptions there, as well?

Yes: we've assumed that things must be this way, that they have always been this way, and will always be. But are those assumptions justified?

No, I don't think so.

Then why are things the way they are, and what can we do about it?

[|Y|]

Rich_Mahogany,

In response, I suppose I picture people going to grocery stores and just pigging out in the most insane and fiendish way possible, I think that if suddenly there are no "legally enforced" boundaries people wouldn't know what to do. But then again, I tend to be a little more cynical about people than I should be.

Yeah, it's all very plausible, I guess, the real question is how do we get there? Anarchism seems so... rational to me, yet it is such a minority view. It sort of fakes me out as though, there must be something wrong here .

Well, sure there will be the inevitable overconsumer. However, in current society we know the unhealthy / negative consumers have really miserable backgrounds for the most part. Long work hours -> fast food. Stressful work situations -> drugs. When you look at population growth in the wealthy world, you see that it is negative or at equllibrium (no growth), because of wonderful magical things like contraceptives. In the poverty stricken world birth rates are huge.

Misery leads to a lot of negative unhealthy behavior. I assume that once that misery was lifted, most people would be sane about their levels of consumption.