Imposed Scarcity

[Note: Blog posts are an ongoing series where EEMA members explore their personal views and experiences relating to issues of development and community organizing. While the general spirit of the postings may reflect the opinions and work of EEMA the views expressed have not been reviewed or agreed to by the group as a whole.]

If a neighbor down the street owned a snow blower or a lawn mower, would you ask to borrow it if you didn’t know them personally? Conversely, if you owned one would you consider lending it out to someone you didn’t know?

Most people wouldn’t. We work hard for the things we own. Often we’ve gone without access to something, so we’re reluctant to risk this new found security. We are socialized to think the other guy is out to take what we have. Is it worth it to take any risk at all when the benefit seems unclear?

There is some truth to this pessimistic view. Our current political and economic system is structured to reward the ability to pull one over on someone else. To make one a winner seems to necessitate a lot of people lose.

We’re being trained to distrust everyone and everything because if we aren’t ever-vigilant we get taken advantage of. If you’ve ever struggled to avoid fees and charges by understanding the yearly mailing your bank sends about its constantly revised “policies” you’re well aware of this reality.

You see it everywhere. The poor hustle the poor. The rich make large donations to politicians who coincidentally champion their interests. The government taking people’s land and homes through eminent domain so some big shot can make a buck. Look no further than the newest proposal to take away land owner’s choices on Marcellus drilling to see this kind of corruption at work.

The message seems to be that dishonesty pays, that money greases the wheels, and that only suckers trust.

As people retreat into the safety of their possessions the community suffers from waste and inefficient use of resources. How many blocks in Bloomfield have multiple snow blowers? How many Friendship homes have lawn mowers for small patches of grass?

It doesn’t need to be this way. Through building relationships of trust and accountability within our neighborhoods we can create a culture of sharing and mutual-aid. In the short term this could mean figuring out ways to pool and share our tools more widely while maintaining a high quality of life.

Who wouldn’t lend out a tool if they had reason to believe it’d come back, that if it broke or got stolen everyone else would quickly pool together the funds to replace it? This wouldn’t be another form of charity, because in such an arrangement you would also be gaining access to other tools you wouldn’t have to buy and a wider network of people who had the skills to repair these tools.

Ultimately, I favor a broader change in society to emphasize the use value of products rather than their exchangeability. In such a society things would be built to last and production would be primarily about meeting people’s needs rather than making profits. In the meantime I wouldn’t mind doing a little less shoveling and a little more sharing.