Differentiating The Anarchy Economy From The Sharing Economy
02.23.12, 2:43pm Comments (9)

Sharing economies have become selling economies. So what do we evolve to when present money and banking systems fail?

So which does your household participate in: the Anarchy economy, the Sharing economy, or both?

I'm not a big fan of the word Anarchy. It implies chaos and conjures images of masked mobs, smoke grenades, and police beat downs. But if our global financial system isn't in a state of chaos, just what state is it in then?

I have been involved with the Sharing Economy and Collaborative Consumption movement full time since 2006. That is the year I helped research and co-author the first municipal response plan for dealing with the effects of collapsing currencies and resource scarcity. I then left my position at a major media company to create an "all-in-one" hyperlocal community cooperation platform to tackle how a city could continue living if there were an overnight "shutoff" of oil supplies to America. I have since found that it is easier to focus on the positives of sharing as a lifestyle, not because I feel it will become a necessity.

What is happening in Greece is the perfect example of understanding the difference between parallel Anarchy economies and the Sharing economies. The same debt crisis struck Argentina in the early 2000's. As jobs and social support funds dry up, people's ability to pay debts (rent, mortgage, food, fuel, etc.) are becoming harder to come by. The money spigot has been turned off, and people are seeking creative ways to reduce the crippling stress that comes with non-access to resources.

More and more technology entrants are developing the sharing economy after figuring our how to monetize sharing behaviors in different sectors. By definition, when you receive money to "share" something, you are no longer sharing, you are selling. Would the employees of sharing technology companies still show up to work for free if the dollar lost its purchasing power? Would for-profit businesses continue to incur operational costs for the 'good of sharing' if the incentive to do so was lost?

The Sharing economy is quickly becoming a diluted term, just like 'sustainable" and 'all natural". If "sharing" means "make some side cash", let's call it what it really is. It is a way to raise cash using owned assets (a room, a car, a wheelbarrow, etc.) that boomerang back to the rightful owner at some point. This in itself is a new concept to many, and even in supposed liberal Portland, there is amazing anger commentary directed toward personally owned assets being put up for rent.

This is because the behavior is perceived as a business transaction. This is why a Sharing economy that will remain defined as a relationship-building endevour needs to tread carefully as we all move forward feeling our way into the future. More anger at rapid change will be released as the constraints of a finite planet manifest through conflict. Happiness in America is still connected to 'having stuff', and there are entire generations who want a bigger piece of a shrinking pie.

If the Sharing Economy is the responsible sibling, then the Anarchy economy is the black sheep in the family that keeps it real. There is a definite connection between the Anarchy and Sharing economies, but let's look at some distinct differences:

Anarchy Economy:
Anything goes
Open source preferred
Barter / Swap / Lend / Free (Bright Neighbor)
Anticipates banking and laws will lose relevance and legitimacy
Collaborative production and creativity (free projects)
Seek to build relationships around developing trust for community building

Sharing Economy:
Renting out your assets for money (renting out a room, p2p car sharing, etc.)
Selling amateur labor for money (non-bonded, uninsured, under or unemployed)
Rules based with various levels of legal terms agreed to between parties
Collaborative production and creativity (for a fee or suggested donation)
Seek to build credibility around past performance for future exchanges

The Anarchy economy is not trying to make money, and when it does, it becomes the "Sharing economy".

Bright Neighbors working together to create an in-ground worm farm breeding reactor.

The Anarchy economy is the "Stone Soup" economy. You get out what you put in, and the value of each transaction is negotiated by the parties involved, not currency-value finance wizards at banks. An Anarchy mindset quickly brings order to chaos, bringing people together to create community through positive learning experiences that create a supply of something useful to the community.
 

Bright Neighbors distributing new trees created from grafted fruit tree scions.

The Anarchy economy also understands that the real way to determine if you trust someone is to go beyond 'online profile reviews' and to get active in real world groups that have a sense of responsibility. In order to make the economy work successfully, it must have more than self-interest in mind.

An example of it not working is when the incentive (money) is removed, and the payoff (whatever value the person receives) is not enough for them to care.

But what would we do if the Anarchy economy was forced upon us in the event of the Strait of Hormuz getting shut down? Or the trillions of dollars created out of thin air coming home to roost and devaluing America's main currency to painful levels of hardly-any-purchasing-power?

Here is a continuity plan I would love to hear your comments on.

Rate this article

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Thanks, Randy, for this post!

My household has taken small steps to participate in both of the economies that you discuss. For the sharing economy we've done carsharing through a local nonprofit (City CarShare) for a long time now; recently, we've also had a handful of experiences with Airbnb and swap.com. For the anarchy economy, I've volunteered with an urban farm (Hayes Valley Farm) that was built with volunteer labor and gives away all of the produce, and I'm trying to participate more in our local timebank -- which I love conceptually but have yet to figure out how I can best engage in it.

If I understand you correctly, I don't think you're saying that it would be best to do away with the sharing economy. Rather, I think you're saying that we need to recognize the limits of what it is (a cash transaction in most cases) and questioning how well it will hold up in times of economic collapse. And I think you're saying that, in contrast, the anarchy economy is more "real" and creates deeper interactions that are more likely to build community than the sharing economy.

A question that I have for you is: How do you see the anarchy economy as being similar or different from the solidarity economy? (Readers of this comment might want to check out this Q&A http://shareable.net/blog/on-the-solidarity-economy-a-qa-with-mira-luna about the solidarity economy with Mira Luna.)

Seth, thank you for that question, and kudos to you for having feet in both places!

Yes, you are right. I am saying that the Sharing economy is a majorly important step towards a non-fiat money world. What that world is called - whether an Anarchy economy, Solidarity economy, collaborative consumption economy (or a growing number of labels), it is the recognition that the old way is coming down.

That means the old order is falling - including billions of established contracts based on the rule of law. But when the law is lawless, people will lose respect for established pillars, and the entire construct of power changes.

The neat part is to watch the snake eat its own tail as capitalism invests in its own dissasembly evolution by pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the sharing economy.

The big question to me is when the system of contracts and debts falls - who gets to say who owns what? We can't revert to raw violence over resources, so the trick is to create a culture of happiness around the process of rapid adaptivity itself.

As best I can tell, the old system does seem to be falling apart and, as you suggest, it's likely to be a race to see whether we (all of us) can create a new system as the old one crumbles. Otherwise, as you say, the alternative would seem to be violence.

There's obviously been a long history of unequal distribution of wealth and resources and one of the (many) challenges is imagining new ways to address that historic inequity so that, as you say, the sharing economy isn't simply about making money off of owned assets, or we'll simply recreate all of those inequities.

Have you read Malcolm Harris's post from yesterday (http://www.shareable.net/blog/the-dangers-of-pricing-the-infinite-0)? It discusses David Graeber's recent book (called _Debt_), the danger of transforming inter-generational debt into monetary sums -- particularly student debt -- and how that system is profoundly unstable. It really makes me want to read Graeber's book.

Yes,

I have found that different models apply for different situations. Flexibility is the name if the game, and knowing how to manage multiple mechanisms of getting what you need is key.

This just out on Reuters today: Analysis: New central bank cash glut risks "monetary anarchy"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/28/us-investment-money-idUSTRE81R...

I don't get the phrase "Bright Neighbor." Could you explain?

I don't get the phrase "Bright Neighbor." Could you explain?

Jen, Randy is referring to http://brightneighbor.com. I'll let him explain more about Bright Neighbor since I'm not familiar with it.

Jen,

Bright Neighbor is a hybrid sharing / anarchy economy platform based in Oregon. Since 2008, It has served as an innovation pioneer in social sharing and various collaborations among an entire city (population 600,000+).

Bright Neighbor was designed to solve the question of: What would / could an entire city do if the present money / debt system went away tomorrow?

Verticals the system engages in:

Hyper-local Barter (exchange)

Vehicle sharing / rentals

Ride sharing / free & fee

Space / home sharing / rental

Asset rentals

Skills / Learning

DVDs, Books, Games, Etc.

Collaboration projects / offline

Local labor for pay / trade / credit

Food production / land

Tool sharing