OK, I’m having a difficult time understanding. I see many problems arising out of this. First, what criteria would be use to determine what is a “need/essential” vs. what is a “want”? Second, who would be determining this criteria? Third, how would this be implemented?

I think too many commodities have the fluidity of being able to move between both categories, and some individuals would classify a commodity as a want, others a need. I think it would be a great error to assume that a “need” is always going to be a “need,” and a “want” is always going to be a “want” (as time has demonstrated repeatedly). It would be erroneous to assume the general population is homogeneous in regards to it needs. It sets problematic issues, as it implies that people are going to be limited to what they produce (particular if they have in their hearts to produce something that might not be viewed as needed or essential). I also think that it would be patronizing, as well as paternalistic, if we were to cease the production of commodities that are viewed as “wants,” just because some people view them as unnecessary or as a negative. It convenes somewhat a “I Know/We Know What’s Best for You” vibe.

To expand, I am also viewing a commodity not only as a physical/material object, but talents and skills as well, (such as for example, instruction in the arts or in music). Attempting to label those commodities as something that is either or put in danger of extinction many of those particular skills.

Wow, there sure are a lot of “needs” and “wants” in those paragraphs. Sorry if it seems spacey, but as people can see it’s almost 5am.

I hope this project does not repeat the 20th Century mistake of reducing “resisting Capitalism,” the political struggle par excellance of the last 150 years, to a matter of wealth distribution. Capitalism is not merely a structure of resource distribution, but a way in which we reproduce our material and social existence. In other words, if I may be unashamedly Marxist about it, it’s a mode of production, and changing it will take more than, as it were, putting a human face on it all (making it “fair”) and calling it good.

Capitalism is about stored, assigned, and commoditized value. The flaws that flows from it usually has something to do with that. People starving other people by their control of grain silos. People making sure that others do not have ready access to liquid cash, similar to Jim Crow era banking for minorities or the Gold Standard during the latter part of the 19th century. People who socially manipulate a value to certain items like oil, water, status markers like lifestyle and homes, etc, etc…

To a certain degree, all of these things will happen under any economic regimen that grants certain people the control of the fountain–whether that be of gold, land, grain, or labor. There aren’t many systems that avoid that, namely because a proportional number of people are highly, highly motivated to set up a system that affords them this sort of control. Pretty much only in a Post Singularity (cheap nano as well) revolution as described by Ken Macleod or Karl Schroeder will that change, namely because largely disinterested outsiders control the spigot (Macleod’s books are more about a disembodied dynamics, but still…).

So a thread like this, and I’m well…”I’d like a pink pony too!”

Issue 4 of make/shift, due out in September, features a multi-article spread on economics, focusing on just, community-based models and people/projects who are engaged in creative resistance and creating something new …

jessilikewhoa: I have not forgotten about your request for more on alternatives to capitalism, especially ones we can each begin engaging in in our daily lives. I’m out of town this weekend for a cousin’s wedding (playing bridesmaid, even, of all incongruous things!), so I may not have much online time, but quickly, some resources and activities that have been exciting/useful/challenging/inspiring/thought-provoking to me lately:

* participating in a local produce co-op (the one I’m involved with — info here:http://urbansoil.net/wiki.cgi/LAEV_Food_Coop — isn’t exactly a CSA [community supported agriculture], but kinda like that)
* LETs — local economic trading systems (not a full-on barter system, but localized skill- and time-sharing for a piece of community members’ overall economic/resource puzzle); these exist already in lots of places, and are being formed right now in many more
* Deep Economy by Bill McKibben — quite a few interesting small-scale, community-based-econ projects profiled in this book
* Vandana Shiva — she is writing all kinds of amazing stuff about alternatives to global capitalism (mostly focused on local, nonindustrial, biodiverse, democratic structures); keep an eye out for a great new title from South End Press called _Soil Not Oil_
* Transition Culture — found this blog via Vandana Shiva’s writing, and it offers some inspiring ideas: http://transitionculture.org/
* Toolbox for Sustainable City Living — haven’t finished reading this yet, but I’m excited about it (and I got my copy via South End Press’s community-supported publishing program, which is itself an exciting example of grassroots/community-based economics and of which I’m a proud member) :http://www.southendpress.org/2007/items/87804

(Obviously I’m convinced that economic and environmental issues are very much linked, and can’t see how to have a conversation about alternatives to global capitalism that is not also a conversation about sustainability and environmental justice, and vice versa.)

More as I find time.

Love,

Jess

Also, I’d like to chime in on noting that I’m really enjoying your posts in general. Your tone resonates with me…something like strong-and-kind, which is hard to find on blogs sometimes.