Comments on: Barter Networks and the Counter-Economy http://c4ss.org/content/724 building awareness of the market anarchist alternative Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:13:28 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Kevin Carson http://c4ss.org/content/724/comment-page-1#comment-613 Kevin Carson Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:41:15 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=724#comment-613 A comment from Dan Clore, which Wordpress won't let him post for some reason: Awesome article, Kevin. I think you hit the nail on the head. For what it's worth, at my Smygo news-list the links section has a folder for counter-economics: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/links/Counter_Economics_001186112419/ You don't need to be a member to add links (I think). A comment from Dan Clore, which Wordpress won’t let him post for some reason:

Awesome article, Kevin. I think you hit the nail on the head.

For what it’s worth, at my Smygo news-list the links section has a folder for counter-economics:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/links/Counter_Economics_001186112419/

You don’t need to be a member to add links (I think).

]]> By: scott http://c4ss.org/content/724/comment-page-1#comment-609 scott Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:55:12 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=724#comment-609 Yes. I also communicated with you about layout / design work prior to the publication of Organization Theory. Yes. I also communicated with you about layout / design work prior to the publication of Organization Theory.

]]> By: Kevin Carson http://c4ss.org/content/724/comment-page-1#comment-608 Kevin Carson Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:55:53 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=724#comment-608 PML: My analysis presupposes the countereconomy emerging as a successor system to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the old one in the face of systemic crises. In that case, "hollow states" (or semi-hollow states which are becoming increasingly hollowed out) will lack the resources to police a movement as dispersed as household producers contributing to barter networks. So in a sense LETS systems and all the Whole Earth Catalog stuff have *been* the remnant for the past thirty or forty years, simply treading water and surviving as islands in a subsidized, state capitalist sea; they're now in the process of supplanting the old system precisely because of the "collapse of the wider system from other causes." Scott: Thanks for the info. Was that you who sent me the pamphlet about the Asheville LETS system? If so, thanks. PML: My analysis presupposes the countereconomy emerging as a successor system to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the old one in the face of systemic crises. In that case, “hollow states” (or semi-hollow states which are becoming increasingly hollowed out) will lack the resources to police a movement as dispersed as household producers contributing to barter networks. So in a sense LETS systems and all the Whole Earth Catalog stuff have *been* the remnant for the past thirty or forty years, simply treading water and surviving as islands in a subsidized, state capitalist sea; they’re now in the process of supplanting the old system precisely because of the “collapse of the wider system from other causes.”

Scott: Thanks for the info. Was that you who sent me the pamphlet about the Asheville LETS system? If so, thanks.

]]> By: scott http://c4ss.org/content/724/comment-page-1#comment-607 scott Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:57:49 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=724#comment-607 Here in Asheville, I help run a Local Exchange Trading System (ashevillelets.org) that has received significant guidance on legal issues. According to the CPA with whom we consulted, the IRS allows exchange networks to exist on a community scale without significant regulation if they exist solely to facilitate "the informal trade of similar services on a noncommercial basis." This is somewhat vague, but theoretically leaves open a lot of territory. Since it clearly excludes the participation of business establishments, it also has the interesting result of shifting focus towards self-employment and cottage industry while sidestepping thorny issues like the role of wage labor. On another related subject, I am a worker-owner at Firestorm Cafe & Books, a self-managed enterprise that is significantly informed by mutualism. Along the lines you suggest above, we recently "crowdsourced" a capital campaign to expand our cafe. We invited community members to invest in our business by making small loans to us in $50 increments. We then issued investors gift certificates worth 110% of their loans. So far, we've raise $1,250 - most of what we need for the modest expansion. We'll repay the loans in product, meaning that we shift a significant portion of the expansion cost from capital (which we lack) to labor (which we have in relative abundance). Here in Asheville, I help run a Local Exchange Trading System (ashevillelets.org) that has received significant guidance on legal issues. According to the CPA with whom we consulted, the IRS allows exchange networks to exist on a community scale without significant regulation if they exist solely to facilitate “the informal trade of similar services on a noncommercial basis.” This is somewhat vague, but theoretically leaves open a lot of territory. Since it clearly excludes the participation of business establishments, it also has the interesting result of shifting focus towards self-employment and cottage industry while sidestepping thorny issues like the role of wage labor.

On another related subject, I am a worker-owner at Firestorm Cafe & Books, a self-managed enterprise that is significantly informed by mutualism. Along the lines you suggest above, we recently “crowdsourced” a capital campaign to expand our cafe. We invited community members to invest in our business by making small loans to us in $50 increments. We then issued investors gift certificates worth 110% of their loans. So far, we’ve raise $1,250 – most of what we need for the modest expansion. We’ll repay the loans in product, meaning that we shift a significant portion of the expansion cost from capital (which we lack) to labor (which we have in relative abundance).

]]> By: P.M.Lawrence http://c4ss.org/content/724/comment-page-1#comment-606 P.M.Lawrence Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:37:40 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=724#comment-606 The catch with that approach, done in isolation, is that it would only work for as long as the state tolerated it. Indeed, the state might choose to tolerate it on a small scale rather than change the rules, taxes, etc. to get at it, either because it would be more trouble than it was worth or because it would allow the state to look accommodating - just as eastern bloc countries nominally had small local parties as well as the communist parties, so long as they didn't actually pose a threat to the system (or consider the Amish, and how they first had trouble with state "insurance" schemes and then were allowed not to comply). So on its own that approach might offer individuals or small groups a temporary refuge, but no more (which still might be useful for them, and to have a "remnant" in place ready to act if a collapse of the wider system happened from other causes). However, it might be significantly more available and more effective combined with other tactics, such as the Irish one of "join and sabotage" to get into the state system and try and make it less able to act against them, and such as outside direct action that can even rise to outright violent rebellion (though I would not like it if things came to that pass). The Irish used both of those in parallel, eventually succeeding at least in part, and there were Irish movements towards this sort of internal opting out too, but they were much less significant. Unfortunately, it might take all three options to work, unless perhaps there are other tactics that could be used as well or instead. There are case histories of what happens with opting out alone, e.g. the Mormons and the Boers found physical removal just bought time until the state followed them. There are even case histories of what happens with in place opting out and "join and sabotage" together, e.g. the Strangite Mormons of Beaver Island - see <a HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Strang" rel="nofollow">James Strang</A> and how <I>for a time</I> he bought immunity by working within the system as well (but also note how he ended up). The catch with that approach, done in isolation, is that it would only work for as long as the state tolerated it. Indeed, the state might choose to tolerate it on a small scale rather than change the rules, taxes, etc. to get at it, either because it would be more trouble than it was worth or because it would allow the state to look accommodating – just as eastern bloc countries nominally had small local parties as well as the communist parties, so long as they didn’t actually pose a threat to the system (or consider the Amish, and how they first had trouble with state “insurance” schemes and then were allowed not to comply).

So on its own that approach might offer individuals or small groups a temporary refuge, but no more (which still might be useful for them, and to have a “remnant” in place ready to act if a collapse of the wider system happened from other causes). However, it might be significantly more available and more effective combined with other tactics, such as the Irish one of “join and sabotage” to get into the state system and try and make it less able to act against them, and such as outside direct action that can even rise to outright violent rebellion (though I would not like it if things came to that pass). The Irish used both of those in parallel, eventually succeeding at least in part, and there were Irish movements towards this sort of internal opting out too, but they were much less significant.

Unfortunately, it might take all three options to work, unless perhaps there are other tactics that could be used as well or instead. There are case histories of what happens with opting out alone, e.g. the Mormons and the Boers found physical removal just bought time until the state followed them. There are even case histories of what happens with in place opting out and “join and sabotage” together, e.g. the Strangite Mormons of Beaver Island – see James Strang and how for a time he bought immunity by working within the system as well (but also note how he ended up).

]]>