As an example of how a gift economy produces squalor even in our modern civilization, consider how it seems like guys who complain about getting friendzoned lack a thorough grasp of the power of indirect exchange for satisfying wants.
They say, "I moved her sofa and she didn't give me any sexual favors! What a bitch!" Then they get into endless arguments about whether common decency and fairness require that kind of reciprocation.
But it's well-known that wealthy guys have more romantic options. Therefore, it seems like these guys should open a sofa-moving business and then use the money to attract women, rather than trying to convert sofa-moving labor directly into sex. They still haven't progressed beyond barter; they're like the guy who wanders around trying to find a person with an ox for sale who wants eight sets of clothing in exchange. Landmartian (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- and?--Miekal 18:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This argument against gift economies is bad
I'm just going to ignore the fact that it literally starts with "however, it wouldn't work" - how exactly does the writer of this argument think anarcho-communists have gone several centuries talking about how their ideal economy would work without mentioning how their ideal economy would work?
The answer is pretty simple; planning. Despite what the article says, state socialism or centralised government is not required for a planned economy; decentralised planning - whether it's a democratically-delegated planning body or a direct system - is a thing. I know, what a complicated idea; people want a thing, so they get together with the rest of the community and decide how to make that thing.
An actual argument against gift economies might be, for example, that it can't function in a society with scarcity. Ancoms have counterarguments against this, but both of those can be presented for discussion. Not "ancoms don't say how their production would work" which is, uh, just false? — Unsigned, by: Arewe / talk / contribs