Three Fundamental Principles of Economic Relations
In this text, the author explains that there are three fundamental moral principles on which economic relations are based. These principles occur in all human societies, are combined with each other, and are always present in varying degrees.
Communism
In relation to communism, the author defines it as any human relationship that operates under the principle of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” (*). The author begins by stating that previously there was a dominant idea, influenced by a myth: long ago, humans had all their things in common (Neolithic hunters-gatherers), and the Fall brought about the current divisions of power and private property. The dream was for a society to be established where common ownership and shared management of human resources were real. There were many discussions between communists and anti-communists, but they all came to a common framework: communism was about collective property, primitive communism had existed in the past, and one day it could return.
For the author, communism is neither a magical utopia nor anything that has to do with the ownership of the means of production. It is something that exists today and that occurs to a greater or lesser extent in every human society. We all act as communists at some point; in fact, all social systems, including economic systems, are built on elements of existing communism. According to the principle (*), we can look at issues such as who has access to what kind of things and under what conditions.
The author says that a good way to know if a certain action is communist is if no accounting is being carried out. Everyone follows this principle if they collaborate on a common project (e.g., pipeline arrangement).
Exchange
Regarding exchange, the author says that it is based on equivalence. It is a process that involves two parties, each of which gives as much as it receives. Often there is an element of competition, but at the same time, there’s a sense that both sides are keeping accounts in some way; it allows us to cancel out our debts.
Gift Exchange
We have to talk about the exchange of gifts. In these situations, we choose, and to continue this over time, competition can become a very dangerous game. In many cultures, it was customary to respond with infinite artistry; timing was very important, and you had to make the counter-gift just different enough, but just slightly grander. So, a gift is both an honor and a provocation; exchange can be seen in reciprocity.
Hierarchy
Finally, in hierarchical relations, at least between two parties where one is considered superior to the other, there tends not to be reciprocity. According to the author, there are two types of relationships:
- Charitable relationships: This act of generosity is treated as a precedent for what is expected later.
- Precedent-based relationships: Some time ago, any gift to a superior would likely be marketed as a precedent and added to the usual network. The only way to prove that one has the obligation to do something is to show that one has done it before.
There exists a simple formula: a certain action, repeated, becomes a “clientela” as a result of defining the essential nature of the act. We can see a certain repression in the feudal relationship (e.g., farmers feed their superiors, and they give protection in return).