A gift economy is not market socialist. Let’s visualise it with a few examples, on a spectrum. I’ll add a few remarks on the politics.
Anglo-Saxon model
Close to “free” capitalism, in that companies experience relatively little regulation (or consequences when they behave against the general wellbeing, such as dumping sewage in rivers, and the CEOs not being held responsible). The economy is highly linked to supply and demand, but this can be very variable and thus crashes and crises will be worse for the public, and peaks as well.
In there, hierarchy and private property play a large role; the boss ‘owns’ the machinery, through which their employees actually do the hard work to generate profit, which mostly goes to the boss. The US and to a lesser extent, the UK, are examples of this. The police and politics frequently are under the leadership of former company leaders, who earn their political power through bribery thanks to the power of companies. As such, they have an interest to repress socialism.
Rhine model
In there, labour union, company, and government leaders, often collectively negotiate with each other. Generally, regulation is higher, with an accent on family, friends, and social workers first taking care of the impoverished and disabled, and after that, the state. The market does play a role, but there is a relatively greater degree of social security - Germany is an archetypical example of this. These seem to mostly occur in countries that do not have a political duopoly, since groups have to negotiate more often to govern.
Mediterranean model
Similar to the Rhine model, although with a strong accent on care for the elderly with high pensions. I unfortunately do not know much of this one, otherwise. Italy and Spain are examples. Co-operatives and family companies tend to be very common in these.
Nordic model
The most extensively socialised form of a capitalist market economy; it has strong wellbeing and labour protections, high unionisation rates, collective bargaining, and provides a “from the cradle to the grave” model. The Nordic countries are good examples of these.
In good years, the state saves up the profit so that in bad years the state may be able to cover the fall; the public as thus does not experience much of financial crises. In my opinion, this is one that has worked very well; but my main criticism for this model (although much less than on other models) is that economical leadership is still in the hands of CEOs, and thus the economy is susceptible to corruption from inside. Were these to be supervised by e.g. trade unions instead, and were labour decentrally organised, I think this model would go a long end towards democratic market socialism. And thus we enter;
Market socialism
Which functionally encompasses just that; like the Nordic model, it increases socioeconomic equality by a great extent, but unlike the Nordic model, it also changes ownership patterns. Yugoslavia was an excellent example of this, in where decentral planning occurred, with worker self-management. A side-remark, but Yugoslavia had the problem that it relied on e.g. oil too much; it should have diversified. SEOs like in China are another example of this economic model, though CEOs are supervised by party leaders, and I think there should be no CEOs altogether. Vietnam has a similar model, with a lot of worker co-ops. But that said, I think this was as close to ideal as had been in a sovereign recognised country. In such a model, supply and demand also still influence the market, and that might be useful as an indicator to where put more support.
Gift economy
There are some various implementations of this. I personally favour a potlatch- or koha-like system, with a give-it-forward model. In there, everyone gives their share as a donation, to aid another, so that in turn they may also be helped. It’s similar to how people may buy a coffee/beer for a developer, which in turn will be able to continue work and thus be able to give them software updates.
Something I ponder, is that what you see, is that in societies where disasters occur, gifting becomes a mode of economy again. I feel like it might be because it relies on aid rather than on capability to profit; and so to receive necessary goods, you should be seen as a kind person - which requires donations.
A gift economy is not market socialist. Let’s visualise it with a few examples, on a spectrum. I’ll add a few remarks on the politics.
Anglo-Saxon model
Close to “free” capitalism, in that companies experience relatively little regulation (or consequences when they behave against the general wellbeing, such as dumping sewage in rivers, and the CEOs not being held responsible). The economy is highly linked to supply and demand, but this can be very variable and thus crashes and crises will be worse for the public, and peaks as well.
In there, hierarchy and private property play a large role; the boss ‘owns’ the machinery, through which their employees actually do the hard work to generate profit, which mostly goes to the boss. The US and to a lesser extent, the UK, are examples of this. The police and politics frequently are under the leadership of former company leaders, who earn their political power through bribery thanks to the power of companies. As such, they have an interest to repress socialism.
Rhine model
In there, labour union, company, and government leaders, often collectively negotiate with each other. Generally, regulation is higher, with an accent on family, friends, and social workers first taking care of the impoverished and disabled, and after that, the state. The market does play a role, but there is a relatively greater degree of social security - Germany is an archetypical example of this. These seem to mostly occur in countries that do not have a political duopoly, since groups have to negotiate more often to govern.
Mediterranean model
Similar to the Rhine model, although with a strong accent on care for the elderly with high pensions. I unfortunately do not know much of this one, otherwise. Italy and Spain are examples. Co-operatives and family companies tend to be very common in these.
Nordic model
The most extensively socialised form of a capitalist market economy; it has strong wellbeing and labour protections, high unionisation rates, collective bargaining, and provides a “from the cradle to the grave” model. The Nordic countries are good examples of these.
In good years, the state saves up the profit so that in bad years the state may be able to cover the fall; the public as thus does not experience much of financial crises. In my opinion, this is one that has worked very well; but my main criticism for this model (although much less than on other models) is that economical leadership is still in the hands of CEOs, and thus the economy is susceptible to corruption from inside. Were these to be supervised by e.g. trade unions instead, and were labour decentrally organised, I think this model would go a long end towards democratic market socialism. And thus we enter;
Market socialism
Which functionally encompasses just that; like the Nordic model, it increases socioeconomic equality by a great extent, but unlike the Nordic model, it also changes ownership patterns. Yugoslavia was an excellent example of this, in where decentral planning occurred, with worker self-management. A side-remark, but Yugoslavia had the problem that it relied on e.g. oil too much; it should have diversified. SEOs like in China are another example of this economic model, though CEOs are supervised by party leaders, and I think there should be no CEOs altogether. Vietnam has a similar model, with a lot of worker co-ops. But that said, I think this was as close to ideal as had been in a sovereign recognised country. In such a model, supply and demand also still influence the market, and that might be useful as an indicator to where put more support.
Gift economy
There are some various implementations of this. I personally favour a potlatch- or koha-like system, with a give-it-forward model. In there, everyone gives their share as a donation, to aid another, so that in turn they may also be helped. It’s similar to how people may buy a coffee/beer for a developer, which in turn will be able to continue work and thus be able to give them software updates.
Something I ponder, is that what you see, is that in societies where disasters occur, gifting becomes a mode of economy again. I feel like it might be because it relies on aid rather than on capability to profit; and so to receive necessary goods, you should be seen as a kind person - which requires donations.