A Totally Different Way to Think About Economics — with Visionary Charles Eisenstein

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/visions/totally-different-way-think-about-economics-visionary-charles-eisenstein




What would the world look like if money embodied our values, if the best business decision was the best decision for society, and if wealth was defined by how much we give, not how much we have?

This summer, I decided to escape [my hometown of] London for a week .... for a different kind of short vacation. At Schumacher College in south Devon, the author and teacher Charles Eisenstein was travelling to the UK from the United States to run a course on ‘ecology, scarcity and the gift economy', before embarking on a tour around Europe. I'd only heard about Charles and his work when the Occupy Wall Street protests took off in late 2011, and I was captivated by his unique take on all that is wrong with our world as well as his fresh and engaging speaking style, as captured in a short film by Ian Mackenzie . After coming across his latest book, Sacred Economics , I jumped at the opportunity to spend some time in his company and learn more about his views on how "to make money and human economy as sacred as everything else in the universe".

The basic proposition of Charles' work was introduced to the course participants during a Sunday evening lecture on the first day of arrival. Charles suggested that everyone carries a secret knowledge in their hearts that tells them the society we live in is meant to be more beautiful than this, and yet we're constantly pulled back to a way of being that is somehow alien to us. Whatever world problem or crisis we look at, from fracking and atmospheric pollution to the destruction of the rainforests or the breakdown of community, someone somewhere is making money from it. It seems as if money has become opposite to our ideals, said Charles, and is often turned into a force for evil. So what would money look like if it embodied our values, if the best business decision was the best decision for society, and if wealth was defined by how much we give, not how much we have?


During the next morning of the course, we began to explore these broad ideas through a number of experiential exercises. This began with an exploration of ‘the gift' and what that means for us personally in our day-to-day lives and our work. As Charles began the session by explaining, this hearkens back to indigenous cultures in which an understanding of the gift was fundamental to how societies functioned - a concept that is widely explored in the fascinating book The Gift by Lewis Hyde (one of four books recommended for participants to read before the course began).* Today, we generally no longer see society as premised on the gift, but have rather constructed complex market economies that hinder us from expressing our gifts on a social, economic or individual basis - the implications of which is profoundly contemplated in Charles' writings. The need to re-learn the gift is central to the changes that are now needed to heal our broken world, as his latest book explains in compelling detail; from an analysis of how modern civilisation has tragically lost our understanding of the gift, to the collective actions necessary to create a gift-based economy and realise "the more beautiful world our hearts tell us is possible".

[dkf]

1. How does this differ from a typical commune?

I don't see why people can't go off and do this sort of thing if they so desire.

But having the entire world do it? You would have to get rid of different religions first.

[tama]

2. And different states?

History of religions shows that they have been more often than not social revolutions towards gift economy and freedom from state oppression (e.g. early Christianity and Rome). Of course history has also ample evidence of religions falling into the traps of dogmatism, us-against-them and power hierarchies. Different religious communities can co-exist and add to the variety. In fact, strongest and fastest growing pacifistic and self-reliant communities in US are Amish communities. If the current trend continues, US is becoming Amish nation pretty fast.

[Confusious]

3. Not a big believer in simple answers

when it comes to people.

Sounds like a lot of new age hokus-pokus.

the monied elite haven't changed in 5,000 years, i doubt they'll be different 5,000 years from now.

PS. After reading about his idea, seems interesting, but it still has problems.

Such as, if money depreciates, then everyone will try to get whatever they can for it, which means more material usage.

And there is scarcity, there's only so much, oil, steel, copper, aluminum, fertilizers, trucks, cars, to go around.

[tama]

5. Heh

The "People are Complex" -complex, no need to argue against that. Yet we connect wisdom with simplicity.

Gift economies of families, networks of relatives and friends, indigenous tribes, "cybercommunism" of Wikipedia etc. do not go away just by declaring them "new age hokus-pokus". As does not gift economy of Earth and nature as whole. We live in gift economy, from which also financial economy - that very strange gift of whole - is dependent from.

[Confusious]

10. I've never connected wisdom with simplicity

Gift economies works fine for tribes.

What's the appropriate gift for 10 tons of corn? 6 tons of beef?

I'm going to need a bigger wallet.

[tama]

14. Gift for?

Sorry, I don't follow, what does "appropriate gift for 10 tons of corn" mean?

[Confusious]

16. Gift economies

What is the appropriate gift for a gift of 10 tons of corn.....

[tama]

21. That's not gift

that's exchange or barter you are thinking about.

"10 tons of corn" is the gift in itself, from whole of nature to hungry bellies of nature.

[Confusious]

26. The article wasn't that enlightening

How much are you suppose to "gift?"

A small portion, np

All of it? I wouldn't put my faith in the kindness of strangers.

He seems to fail to realize the other part that goes with that. In small groups, the tribe is life. Without the tribe you are dead. If you were dishonest, the tribe would evict you.

There are 6 billion people on this world. We're not small tribes anymore.

[tama]

31. Those are good questions

And I don't believe Charles' purpose is to offer a ready-made-answer and program for all others to follow.

But just to open dialogue and offer his views to this dialogue we are also having, here and now. Dialogue about how all our various small communities and social identities can coexist peacefully in abundance. And about democratic processes of dialogue and consensus to achieve that vision instead of dystopian visions we want to avoid.

How much are you suppose to gift? In my view all of you, and already and as such and in all ways, your life is a gift as whole.

[Jay Bazuzi]

34. He doesn't propose the abolition of money

It's common for people to hear a summary of what Charles Eisenstein says about money, and think he's proposing we abolish all money, and everyone should just give gifts. That's not what he's saying.

Instead, he looks at the way gift networks function, and asks "how can we change our systems & institutions to embody the same values as the gift?"

We clearly still need money for many things - how else can we coordinate the enormous efforts that go in to building a computer, cell phone, sky scraper, space ship?

But money as we know it embodies beliefs that are becoming obsolete. As our beliefs change, it is necessary for money and other institutions to change to match.

[tama]

6. 5000 years

is a very short blip in human tale, our oral traditions and myths and ancestral wisdom - which is ever present in many forms - give a much wider look. And its not news anymore that financial system dependent from interest and exponential growth has met limits of growth.

What is significant is that the 24/7 propaganda bombardment of the deluded reality bubble of money hypnotism cannot hide and suffocate our basic nature even with that enormous effort.

[Confusious]

13. 500 years is recorded history

And nothing oral stays the same for that long. Probably not even more then 100 years. So no, oral tradition is not better then a book.

Myths I can do without, we have enough already. People fight and die over them.

So no, I don't believe there is any "oral traditions and myths and ancestral wisdom."

"ancestral wisdom" might have worked fine on the plains, but we don't live there anymore.

[tama]

19. "Staying the same"

You seem to consider that books that "stay the same" are inherently better and superior to oral traditions that change and evolve because they stay the same. Attitude that "nothing else has value besides books that stay same" sounds bizarre to me.

But let's go to more important questions, what do you want for yourself (and our children?) and what social structures stand in way of your dreams and their fulfillment, if any?

[Confusious]

22. Certainly not a society based on oral knowledge.

Book knowledge had defeated diseases that have plagued mankind since the dawn of civilization, allowed people to live to 70 and beyond, and put a man on the moon.

Books have allowed us to accumulate the knowledge to build computers and networks that speed commucations to the blink of an eye.

Some things don't change. A hydrogen atom, by any other name, will always have one proton and one electron.

I think it's sad that I have to even state that.

As for the future? As long as scientific progress is continued, the planet is kept in good shape, people treated equally, I'm happy.

[tama]

25. What I don't understand

is the attitude of books versus oral traditions and what sounds almost hostility towards them - and indigenous traditions. Why can't they be complimentary gifts to whole of being, must they compete?

So, why is planet not kept in good shape and people not treated equally (by whom?) as we speak?

[Confusious]

27. You made it sound like oral was superior

I disagree.

You also asked what my vision of the FUTURE was like. I gave it to you.

[tama]

32. Thank you for sharing your vision.

We share the same basic vision. <3

Assessment of superiority and inferiority is meaningful only if we agree on what we are comparing and by what measures. If we measure by empirically tested ways of life of living equally and in balance with ecosystem, non-literal indigenous ways based on oral traditions have superior empirical evidence on their side. Literal traditions may be superior in other ways of measuring.

[tama]

7. New age

It wasn't quite what I expected from a course with a renowned public intellectual, someone who is currently in high demand in America and Europe for his ideas on negative-interest currency, degrowth economics and the quantum theory of money. Yet it was soon clear that every exercise that Charles introduced to us was carefully premeditated, someway relevant on a personal level to the great transition our world is going through, and potentially transformational - even if it did seem a bit New Agey at first. In fact, Charles explained that many contemporary New Age ideas are at variance with his own conceptualisations, particularly the notion that money is merely energy and therefore ‘neutral', or the prevalent New Age view of ‘abundance' that sanctions the acquisition of unlimited personal wealth. Similarly, the New Age idea of ‘making up your own reality' usually ends up not working at all, he finds, as often the negativities you are trying to suppress are the key to change. Hence his emphasis on giving attention to that which needs healing, and on working with the suppressed, shadow material of both ourselves and of society.

I don't know what "new age" is and how to define it - except a knee jerk emoticon of ridicule of wide range of phenomena. However, the quote above sounds rational criticism of some ideas that seem to be connected with the term.

'Abundance' is not a measure of quantity of resources but lack of unsatisfied needs, of being content. Supermarket is full of stuff, but it is not abundant but on the contrary both symbol and fact of artificial scarcity for a parent with hungry child and no money.

[Confusious]

15. knee jerk emoticon of ridicule of wide range of phenomena

Nope, it a long history of reading about fakes and bullshit that leads me to ridicule a "wide range of phenomena".

[tama]

20. Whatever

What do you think and feel about what was said about abundance?

[Confusious]

24. That's why we have programs to help with the basics

I'm not talking about the basics.

There is no way in the world we can give everyone a Ferrari or a summer home overlooking a lake.

There's also no way I would go for giving someone who doesn't work the same resources as someone who works 12 hours days 5 days a week.

[tama]

28. No problem

What do you think about the idea of money system as a mutual peer to peer gift? All citizens or participants of a money system - maybe even global system - of citizen salary to be able to buy basics, and those who want more than just basics working for extra money?

The system of money creation could be done not through banks and monopolies of power, but as citizen salary. As peer to peer money creation system. There are technical details to solve, but I believe the basic idea is sound.

[Confusious]

29. I'm all for new ideas

As long as they're technically sound and help the most people.

[tama]

33. A bit more

The Bitcoin experiment has been so far most technically sound, and the system I have visioned could adopt and utilize what has been good and sound in Bitcoin. There are other technical problems and other open questions that remain, such as how to avoid inflation and (excessive) cumulation of monetary power in few hands. I'm sure they are not impossible to solve, but require careful thinking and experimentation. All contributions are welcome.

[tama]

4. Gift economy

Life of an individual, of an community etc. and all that sustains it, is a gift of Nature, Mother Earth, the whole of "Mitakuye Oyasin", and our lives and creativity are gifts to the whole. This is the most simplest truth of all life, from which the current financial economy of anti-Earth imperialism is the most alienated form.

Academic gifts of self-reflection of our gift economy have concentrated on two major themes, indigenous worldviews and gift economies of global information network called Internet (hacker ethics etc.):

In Indigenous worldviews, the gift extends beyond interpersonal relationships to “all my relations.”1 Put another way, according to these philosophies, giving is an active relationship between human and natural worlds based on a close interaction of sustaining and renewing the balance between them through gifts.

Instead of viewing the gift as a form of exchange or as having only an eco- nomic function as many classic gift theories suggest, I propose that the gift is a reflection of a particular worldview characterized by a perception of the natural environment as a living entity which gives its gifts and abundance to people if it is treated with respect and gratitude (i.e., if certain responsibilities are observed). Central to this perception is that the world as a whole is constituted of an infinite web of relationships extended to and incorporated into the entire social condi- tion of the individual. Social ties apply to everybody and everything, including the land. People are related to their physical and natural surroundings through
72 rauna kuokkanen genealogies, oral tradition and their personal and collective experiences pertaining to certain locations.

According to the traditional Sami perception of the world, like in many other Indigenous worldviews, the land is a physical and spiritual entity which humans are part of. Survival is viewed as dependent on the balance and renewal of the land, the central principles in this understanding are sustainable use of and respect for the natural realm. The relationship with the land is maintained by collective and individual rituals in which the gift and giving back are integral. The intimacy and interrelatedness is reflected in the way of communicating with various aspects of the land which often are addressed directly as relatives. The close connection to the natural realm is also evident in the permeable and indeterminate boundaries between the human and natural worlds. Skilled individuals can assume the form of an animal when needed and there are also stories about women marrying an animal (Porsanger 2004: 151-2).

t-economy.com/womenand/womenand_gift_logic.html


http://nuvatsia.terevaden.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/four-stages-of-freedom.pdf

[marmar]

8. K/R

I really like pieces like this, and hopefully it will get people to open their minds and at least contemplate different possibilities. (Although some responses in the thread indicate that some minds are trapped in the Matrix. )

[xchrom]

9. ...

[OneGrassRoot]

23. Yes, I love Charles Eisenstein and simiilar visionaries.

Thanks for sharing such posts, xchrom and marmar.

I'm always tempted to come here to share them but know that you are both taking care of these types of sharings, trying to offer a new way of seeing things and moving forward.

I'm with you.

[otherone]

12. yes marmar yes

OP like this make my day..

[ananda]

11. Radical gifting..

nt

[Odin2005]

17. This is nice-sounding drivel.

The problem is not the people, the problem is how THE SYSTEM CHANNELS PEOPLE'S BEHAVIOR. The current system forces managers and executives to "maximize shareholder profit", damn everything else, and even well-meaning executives and business owners cannot escape the logic of the system, something Marx talks about in Das Kapital.

[Confusious]

18. The article isn't very enlightening

I found another article where he talks about having money loose value over time so people are forced to spend it.

Interesting, but the theory full of holes.

I don't think I'd put him in the "visionary" catagory.

[Jay Bazuzi]

35. Yes, our systems channel our behavior

You are correct to recognize the importance of our systems' effect on people's behavior. For example, Occupy Wall Street often objects to "greed", but greed is the only sane response to the system we have created.

Our beliefs are changing, and it's coming time to change our systems to match. However, it's important to remember that at one time, our beliefs and systems *did* match. For example. 80 years ago, a young person might be eager to develop new ways to clearcut forests faster, and be proud of his work. Today, ambitious young people want to restore ecosystems and study permaculture.

Charles Eisenstein's book _Sacred Economics_ describes some steps we can take to transform money and economics to match these changing beliefs. Other institutions, such as school, government, agriculture, and medicine will all need similar transformations.

[Nye Bevan]

30. It's all good fun until Boxer gets sent to the glue factory

while the pigs keep all the warm mash for themselves.