Imagine being an ugly autistic man in a gift economy, seeing all the qt sluts get whatever they want just because they promise sexual favors in return.
In a gift economy people are just going to want to give things to socially successful men and women because they have so many things to offer in return that makes us feel good in our brains. Autists have nothing to offer. The anticipation of getting whatever an autist as to offer in return for the gift that you have to work hard for to give him is not enough to make you produce dopamine, so you don't just have any incentive to do it, you biologically have no drive to do it. You're not going to do it
How should we shape our culture to make people think that autists have something to offer in return for giving them things?
I think autists like myself should do everything they can to prevent the revolution from happening until somebody comes up with a way to make people think that autists have something to offer others in a gift economy.
As an autist I'm perfectly fine living austerely tbh
Mason Jackson
Who thinks this is a good idea?
Jaxson King
Me too. But I don't want to work a second of my life. I want others to give me the few things that I need to survive like they do today with autismbux. Life is better for me under social democracy.
Jayden Gomez
...
Cameron Nguyen
Communists and anthropologist
Jacob Hall
I've yet to see a communist claim 'gift economies' to be a thing, less so advocate them.
Camden Thompson
Which ones?
Stop listening to post-left anarchists, nerd. They're only relevant if you want to drop out of society.
Jordan Anderson
This entire board peddles gift economies.
What sort of economy would you prefer?
Landon Perry
What the fuck do you think people did before currency and markets?
Bentley Gray
You have to go back to your own timeline.
Jeremiah Gomez
communism is not a gift economy
Robert Price
gift economy
Justin Ramirez
It will be the gulag for you, filthy NEET.
Christopher Allen
Jesus christ what the fuck is this anarcho-liberal bullshit? Communism is not a "gift economy", things are held in common and distributed according to need (or according to work if there is a "lower phase of communism"). Things aren't individually owned in order to be fucking gifted in the first place, communism is not fucking charity.
This. And take your meds while you're at it.
Henry Cox
confirmed for newfag tbh Localised planned syndicalism.
Read Graeber idiots.
Charles Wood
I have read Graeber.
Colton Cruz
imagine fucking off back to r9k
Isaac Cruz
as if a gift economy is possible
Caleb White
Normies pls go. OP has a point, anarkiddie land would have this problem.
Thomas Flores
just fucking kys nigger
Gavin Roberts
Imagine finally wrapping your head around the fact poor people are often promiscuous and that this has nothing to do with socialism unless you're mad you can't visit whores anymore.
John Jenkins
Wrong century buddy. I assume you also believe in the labor theory of value, that all value comes from labor and that seizing control over productions is a good first step
Lincoln Russell
Implying anarkiddies are syndicalists now.
Jack Bennett
You need to go back.
Ryder Hughes
People like OP will be at the head of the line on DOTR. Beggars will have no place in society .
Jaxson Carter
Hey statists. How about instead of exploiting workers, we have slaves. Isn't that how your ideology works?
Justin Taylor
>>>/liberty/ is that way
Eli Torres
OP is not a worker and has no intention of contributing to society. How is he being exploited? If anything , OP is doing the exploiting in this case .
Ian Clark
No, they're largely communists who do not support a gift economy but rather communism. Read a book.
Juan Carter
Syndicalism is out of fashion. They're all anticiv post-left. Prove me wrong.
Josiah Moore
Gift economy=free distribution i.e no exchange, just take and no charge.
Noah Butler
It's an ancom thing. Arguably in a completely post-scarcity society you wouldn't be using money and there would be any production for exchange, so it makes sense speculatively speaking.
Maybe in the lowest stage of Communism, but a Communist society is a society where all needs are met, this is by Marx's own definition, it literally necessitates a situation where all people have equal direct access to socially produced wealth.
How is value not produced by labor? How has history not proven that Marx was 100% right about LTV? Not even the smuggest Liberal economists can actually explain what they think produces value other then labor, they just shrug and say it's "subjective", they might as well claim value is produced through magic.
Kayden Hall
This. It's not a controversial concept, it's just an attempt to imagine what a society without the value form would look like. I think it's one of those things like "dictatorship of the proletariat", where it has an unfortunate name so when people hear it they immediately sperg out and assume it's retarded.
Jeremiah Cruz
Only Bookchin has described a world where this would be fully true, in any centralized world this claim is false. Even then, unless every person has their own means of production for everything its isn't really fully true
Jaxon Fisher
Jesus Christ you stupid niggers. Read Marx. Communism itself operates under a socialist gift-economy. That's what "from each according to ability, to each according to need" fucking means. It's painfully obvious how new most of you are to leftism yet you're still trying to pretend you have any intellectual authority on this. It's the logical conclusion of revolution after we've reached post-scarcity and consumerism/pointless consumption has been eliminated from our culture.
Owen Hughes
Who says the highest stage of Communism would have the need for a centralized planned economy? When Marx talkes about Communism he's talking about something that would require a good deal of automation and productivism. As for you claim that everyone would need a personal MoP, that's ludicrous, we already manufacture enough commodities and have such a vast stockpile of resources at this point in human history, it's really more of an issue of distribution at this point. In a sense we already live in the "utopian" world Marx and Bookchin once imagined, the real obstacle now is the NeoLiberal order that tethers this system to Capital.
this nigga gets it
Hunter Smith
It would be better if there was a system to keep track of how often people give or take from you. Something digital with a card to store that info on a personal database. That or a mutual credit system so there is a net amount for give and take for each individual. A resource based economy is even better but that's posts-scarcity.
Ian Foster
Value is created through supply and demand. When many people want to buy into something in the hopes that it'll increase in value, the value increases. It sounds stupid but it's true. Labor doesn't really mean anything in an already established company. It's the stock value that matters and the stock value is usually not increased by labor.
There's still value. You still valuate goods and services
Ryder Scott
What do you think Marx was talking about when he talked about Communism? Communism= a completely classless and stateless society. No ruling class, no division of labor, and no State. No bureaucratic centrally planned economies. A Communist society is a society with no political economy whatsoever.
Lucas Thomas
Wouldn't you still have the other autists to mingle with, OP?
Adam Sanchez
I'll have as many friends as I have today.
Elijah Anderson
Yeah, this is one of the few things I get frustrated with when it comes to Marx. Obviously the whole point of Scientific Socialism is that you don't make utopian blueprints about the future. You look at concrete material and historical conditions and then you work towards the negation of contradictions within those conditions, but honestly what replaces money under Socialism and Communism is one of his least thought out concepts, he kind of just waves his hands at labour vouchers and calls it a day. That said, with modern computers and credit this would all be so much easier then in Marx or Lenin's time.
What do you mean by this? Under Capitalism workers only receive a fraction of the value they produce through their labor in the form of wages. Everything else is reinvested into Capital itself. This endless series of reinvestment is what's called "production for value", if you have a society without money or a market in which commodities are produced specifically to be exchanged on for said money, which mind you is a commodity in and of itself, then you don't really have "value" in the sense you're talking about. Or at least I assume, because I'm not sure how you're defining "value" here.
Aaron Williams
Look at the other posts. We're talking within the framework of a society that has a gift economy
Gavin Adams
Poor wording on my part, what you describe is essentially what I meant, however communist free distribution isn't a "gift economy" in the manner in which OP meant. OP seems to be talking about a society in which people own property and give out goods and services on individual whim, something that is inherently anticommunist and about as far from genuine free access as it gets. I know that's not what ancoms means when they talk about a "gift economy" (though I fucking hate the term, it's dumb on multiple levels and a contradiction in terms), but rather I was responding to the idiotic misconception the OP has.
Marx never used the term, see above.
Jeremiah Rivera
Okay I rephrase, he's among few who have really realised that in non abstract terms
Julian Nelson
I feel for you, user. But to be real, you're never gonna get laid in a society without arranged marriages if you're ugly and autistic anyway, not easily at least. Unless you settle for someone that is ugly as well, I guess. Then you have a proper shot.
Then again, not getting laid is not the end of the world. It's not great (I can testify), but there's more to life than relationships. Would be sad however to have to adopt children since you can't manage to get a girlfriend.
