The true meaning of a sharing economyby Mohammed Mesbahi
The true sharing economy represents the end of the old ways defined by the pursuit of profit and competitive
self-interest, while a new age of intergovernmental sharing and cooperation can only begin through the channel of ending
hunger in a world that has such an abundance of financial capital and available resources.
******
What is the sharing economy, and what is its meaning and significance for the world we live in today? If you try and
investigate this question through the internet, there are many debates and misleading definitions that you will soon
come across. The sharing economy is commonly understood as a rising phenomenon of the new millennium that leverages
information technology through peer-to-peer platforms, empowering individuals to share goods and services through
bartering, leasing or the swapping of private assets. There is also a revival of non-monetised initiatives under this
broad umbrella which enable communities to share more in their daily lives, whether it’s through informal groups that
come together with a common aim and purpose, or cooperative endeavours that provide shared access to skills, time,
knowledge and productive spaces. Despite some controversies that have dogged the most popular initiatives in recent
years, many of their leading advocates continue to have an idealistic vision of how the sharing economy can help to
catalyse a social transition towards a more egalitarian, participatory and environmentally sustainable world.
But are these technology-driven innovations and primarily market-mediated forms of exchange really the sum total of what
it means to ‘share’ in modern societies? And is it true that the sharing economy is still in its infancy today, as is so
often stated by those who comment on this fast expanding trend? The fact is that sharing has always been with us as a
distinctly human characteristic, and even applies to the sub-human kingdoms of nature as well as the higher spiritual
realms that are much hypothesised in esoteric philosophy. We have always shared within our homes and families without
the need for smartphones and high technology, which would include the sharing of food, heating and the other basic
necessities of life, as well as the living space, conviviality and mutual support that is fundamental to our health and
prosperity. We share the common lands with our neighbours and communities; we share the roads, the public transport, the
air and nature that surrounds us. Humanity would never have survived since the arrival of the earliest hominin unless we
practised sharing on an interpersonal and communal basis, which is an evolutionary trait that behavioural scientists and
anthropologists have long recognised as intrinsic to our essential nature.
It is also a trait that is necessarily expressed, however incipiently or insufficiently, on both national and global
levels through the intervention of governments in one form or another. The Roman Empire is renowned for
institutionalising many forms of economic sharing, for example, while the contemporary welfare state has its roots in
the German empire governed by Bismarck during the 1880s. The National Health Service created by the United Kingdom in
the 1940s is perhaps a foremost example in modern history of a domestic sharing economy that exists to protect all
citizens from the insecurities of life, as replicated across Western Europe and other industrialised nations in its
various semblances. Of the many different levels and modes of sharing within nations, the ideal of universality in
social service provision and social protection through redistributive policies is, arguably, the most practical
expression of economic sharing that humanity has yet realised. Of course, not everyone would agree with this simple
observation, considering that the founding principles of such publicly-funded systems—concerning equality of
opportunity, the equitable distribution of wealth, and the collective responsibility for securing everyone’s basic human
rights—are now being jeopardised by the increasing market orientation of our societies. Indeed for reasons that we shall
broadly elucidate, the worldwide implementation of these principles through intergovernmental cooperation is far from a
reality in the early 21st century, despite the rapid process of international integration over recent decades in terms
of cross-border trade, migration, foreign investment and other dimensions of globalisation.
Nonetheless, it remains a fact that the sharing economy has always been with us in one form or another, thus it is grave
mistake to believe that the social practise of sharing is still in its infancy today. It should be obvious that sharing
has forever played its part in our everyday lives, regardless of how long we have managed to avoid its crucial
manifestation as a principle that underpins our global economic system. Only now it appears that we’ve suddenly become
aware of the importance of sharing and cooperation as the keystone of economic life, even if that understanding has been
largely limited to the emerging forms of collaboration and co-production in commercial spheres. To be sure, these
activities based on mutualised access to products and services are certainly in their infancy, although they are really
the revival of ancient practices of social interrelationship that are now being facilitated by modern business methods
and advanced computer technologies. The underlying mode of interaction is comparable to much earlier human
civilisations, except that everything is now happening so much faster than before, and through such innovative and
sophisticated techniques, that it gives rise to the illusion of being completely original. There is also a curious
relationship between the advancing technologies of recent decades and the seemingly rapid passing of time, which has
further given rise to the sense that society is evolving very quickly, and that we are even approaching a new era in
which sharing could become the defining modus operandi in global economic and social affairs. That impression may well be proven true, but have we properly understood what
sharing means for the world as a whole, however earnestly we may be responding to this visionary thoughtform that is
everywhere pervading human consciousness?
The silent commercialisation of sharing
Before we add the word ‘economy’ to the word ‘sharing’, we should first of all ponder the human value of sharing per se in the context of this unfortunate planet in which the forces of commercialisation are creating such havoc and
devastation. If we are seriously interested in investigating what sharing means in relation to world problems, we must
begin with an awareness that rampant commercialisation is the greatest danger facing humanity today, based as it is on
the opposite propensities to sharing in both its theoretical and literal meaning. This may sound like another very basic observation, but how can you have a
viable sharing economy in a world that is so unequal as a result of centuries of colonialism, imperialism and laissez-faire economic liberalism, leading to such discrepancies in living standards within and between different countries? Yet few
of the sharing economy advocates appear to begin from this fundamental standpoint, which is to perceive the urgent
necessity of sharing the world’s resources as an antidote to the enduring crime of widespread penury amidst plenty.
Perhaps you believe that the prevalence of poverty is steadily improving, and as such it is an issue that can be left to
our governments to resolve. After all, most leading politicians and business executives continue to propagate such a
message during high-profile conferences, like the annual World Economic Forum in Davos. Even some aid and development
organisations have fallen into the trap of believing the myth that rising prosperity for the few will eventually benefit
the majority, notwithstanding the visible evidence of widening inequalities of wealth and income on an unprecedented
scale—including the ongoing destabilisation of Europe due to an unstoppable influx of poor refugees and migrants. Heads
of state may have vowed to end all forms of poverty by 2030, as recently enshrined in the United Nation’s Post-2015
Development Agenda, but it’s not difficult to perceive the fallacy of such promises while governments remain subject to
the ‘commercialisation paradigm’, as we have discussed elsewhere. That is to say, a prevailing political context in which the excessive influence of major corporations over government
policymaking decisions makes it almost impossible to conceive of states committing to the international arrangements
necessary to respect, protect and fulfil every individual’s established socio-economic rights. The moment there is
another global financial crisis, as widely anticipated, do we really believe that the dire hardships of the poorest
citizens will be immediately prioritised by our existing government administrations? And do we believe that the noble
elites who gather in Davos will make any less profits in their business dealings, even if the extreme poverty rate
drastically surges?
One might presume that these are the kind of political and moral questions to begin asking oneself, if we are truly
concerned about seeing the principle of sharing implemented as a global process that can meet the common needs of all
people in all countries. But unfortunately, the sharing economy as presently understood is not remotely born of the
awareness that humanity must share its resources more equitably in response to multiple converging crises, and on the
basis of a civilisation emergency. It seems the sharing economy today is predominantly related to commercial activity,
to a vaguely collectivistic notion of accessing commoditised amenities, but not to the awareness that we must share the
bounteous produce of this Earth if humanity is to survive. It is certainly not related to the idea of helping the
world’s hungry and destitute, the two billion people or more who suffer from undernourishment and other severe
poverty-related deprivations.
Even those who espouse the sharing economy’s environmental benefits are not rightly concerned with the meaning of
sharing in relation to the critical world situation, as evidenced by such arguments that car sharing will mean there are
less cars on the road, or that tool sharing libraries will mean less new products are purchased by individuals in
affluent communities. Such a case may be empirically validated, but if that is the extent of our thinking on sharing
then we are still trapped within the conditioning or ‘ism’ of consumerism, and limiting our awareness to the idea of
‘consuming less’, which has nothing to do with the sharing economy as properly envisioned and universally expressed. We
should be very careful to perceive how commercialisation hides in those new technologies, and how it makes us blind to
the forces that condition us to buy and endlessly consume expensive merchandise, while we remain indifferent to the
greater environmental and social problems of the world around us.
Abducting the principle of sharing
Possibly 90 percent of the supposed sharing economy is associated with commercial profit-making and self-interest to
some degree, regardless of any positive social effects that may result from the usage of these new technological
platforms. Are we really convinced that this is where the true meaning of sharing is to be found, in accordance with its
deepest philosophical and spiritual implications? We have briefly cited the greatest danger to the world today which is
an economy based on unbridled market forces and ruthless competition, as well as the second great danger which is our
governments who fail to represent the common interests of all citizens, so in hoc are they to a pro-market ideology and
the lobbying stranglehold of multinational corporations. We have also inferred that to perceive the greater vision of a
sharing economy that is based on right human relationship, you must start by thinking of the poor and hungry in less
developed countries, millions of whom are needlessly dying as each year passes. That is an unavoidable truth, although
you will be hard pressed to find the word ‘hunger’ mentioned in any article or social event about the avant-garde
sharing movement. Most of these activities are motivated by a concern for our own pleasure and personal well-being,
which may appear to be important and socially beneficial. But in light of all the suffering and misery that is erupting
throughout the world, is it not time to share resources with those less fortunate than ourselves before we attach such
grandiose titles to our self-seeking pursuits?
What we have really created is a new method for comfortable living, although that method is so constrained by
money-making incentives that it is better described as a gentler form of commercialisation. The human mind loves to
create new methods and ‘isms’, like the priest who believes in a particular conception of God, and then goes to study in
a seminary that God which his own mind and thinking has created. Without being aware of our mental conditioning and
social conformity, the sharing economy advocate is sadly the same in promoting a more convenient and enjoyable way of
life within an unsustainable, grossly unjust and increasingly unequal society that has no meaningful connection to the
inner spiritual reality of our interdependent lives. Thus instead of directing our sharing economy idea towards an
emancipatory conception of justice and human rights, we continue to lower ourselves to the same level of consciousness
as the corporate marketer who convinces us to ‘buy one and get one for free’. There may be nothing wrong with promoting
the ideas of collaborative consumption or shared ownership for budding entrepreneurs, but let’s not pretend that we have
reinvented the principle of sharing on behalf of the greatest good of the greatest number. In psychological terms it
should be understood, at best, as a less stressed mode of living for the more privileged.
To look at the nature of sharing in its profoundest philosophical and spiritual aspects, it may be discerned that the
above-mentioned forms of interpersonal sharing are associated with the personality or lower self, which is a meagre
reflection of the higher level of soul awareness that is conscious of the inherent unity and interconnectedness of
humanity as a whole. We are all capable of realising this higher awareness that lies dormant and ever-present within us,
however much it is suppressed in these materialistic times by solely focusing our energies on what makes us feel
comfortable and emotionally undisturbed within the little boxes of our social lives. This means that if you try and talk
to someone whose energies are preoccupied with the lower personal forms of sharing and collaboration, they will not be
interested in listening to your case for sharing resources between the governments of all nations to irrevocably end
poverty, conflict and environmental destruction. Despite that deeper awareness of what sharing means lying quiescently
within them, they will refuse to look at it and automatically reject its transformative implications, because they feel
more comfortable with the easy idea of sharing personal belongings within a local community. Yet the implementation of
the principle of sharing in world affairs is unlikely to be a comfortable experience at first, for there is so much work
to be done, and so many oppositional forces that must be confronted in business and political spheres. Without doubt,
those accumulated forces will eventually disturb us in our self-absorbed lives and endeavours, and it will not be long
until we are pushed to awaken to the necessity of social transformation as the world’s many crises prolong and climax in
coming years.
The true sharing economy represents the end of the old ways defined by the pursuit of profit and competitive
self-interest, while a new age of global sharing and cooperation can only begin through the channel of ending hunger in
a world that has such an abundance of financial capital and available resources. For now, the true sharing economy
begins with the poor, belongs to the poor, and remains beholden to the poor from any moral or real-world perspective. It
will never begin from a petty notion of enhancing the convenience of our everyday lives, and so long as the idea of
sharing is reduced to such a complacent and self-referential understanding, it will inevitably collapse and become
redundant in the longer term. In the meantime, however, there may be lots of opportunities for making money under the
commercialised banner of sharing, if that is our primary concern. How convenient indeed! There is nothing to stop us
from capitalising on the new sharing technologies and so-called disruptive business models, but we should at least try
to be aware of and honest about our underlying motives and psychological attitudes. Are we really thinking about others
and the state of the world as we carry on with our consumer-driven sharing behaviours, or is it all about ourselves once
again? Please look very closely at the sharing economy initiatives that have so far arisen throughout the Western world,
and ask yourself if they have anything to do with the inner faculties of spiritual awareness that exemplify love, right
relationship and the highest intelligence of man.
The unsung sharers for justice
Most of the sharing advocates of today are pursuing the easiest and least stressful mode of human relations in affluent
society, compared to the millions of marginalised people who are fighting for justice in poorer countries by giving of
their blood, their freedom, their families and often of their lives. That is the hard-core way of sharing, the real and
toilsome path that is witnessed through the struggles of dispossessed indigenous peoples in India, the Palestinians in
Gaza, the landless labourers in South America, the shack-dwellers and smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, the
exploited garment workers in special economic zones across Asia, and so many others—all of whom are implicitly demanding
from their governments a sharing economy that can fulfil their most basic human rights. Many popular uprisings are also
indirectly calling for a sharing economy to be instituted through more inclusive and redistributive government policies,
which would include the Arab Spring wave of demonstrations that aimed at deposing corrupt political regimes, as well as
the anti-austerity demonstrations and Occupy movements that have mobilised in the name of increased social and economic
equality.
We can perceive for ourselves how all these diverse protest activities are the manifestation of a growing call for
sharing, even if that call is unconsciously expressed through a raw response to the injustice that stems from the
imposition of an unfair economic system. To stand up for justice in a world that is characterised by growing
inequalities and economic precariousness for the majority is inevitably a stressful undertaking, hence it is
understandable that the word ‘sharing’ is not on the lips of those activists who oppose the major corporations with
their exploitative and profit-seeking activities, along with the governments who uphold the interests of those powerful
bastions of privilege and wealth. Observe also the frontline servers of humanity within groups like the Red Cross or
Médecins Sans Frontières, who together demonstrate the truest expression of the terms ‘sharing’ and ‘economy’ by working
ceaselessly on behalf of neglected citizens in war-torn and impoverished regions, irrespective of caste, creed or race.
There are many architects of the inchoate and unsung sharing economy, in this respect, who inadvertently define the true
meaning of sharing in their advocacy work and plans for world reconstruction. The list is long and familiar, comprising
as it does the myriad progressive scholars, civil society organisations and political campaigning networks who seek a
more just and ecologically sustainable form of development, central to which is the policy and institutional changes
needed to bring about a fairer distribution of world resources. These fervent thinkers and coalitions of activists may
not overtly recognise the interrelation of their fight for justice with a call for implementing the principle of sharing
worldwide, but the connection is palpable and real for anyone who perceives the problem of our dysfunctional societies
on the basis of a compassionate awareness of the whole.
So how closely do we believe that the commercialised sharing initiatives of today are aligned with these great social
struggles and citizens’ movements that point the way towards a true sharing economy, one that is realised through a
transformation in government priorities on behalf of the subjugated poor? None of the sharing economy practitioners in
community-level movements appear to be interested in dedicating their efforts towards urging our political leaders to
share the nation’s surplus wealth and resources, if only to prevent the deaths of circa 18 million people who die
prematurely each year from poverty-related causes, often from malnutrition and childhood diseases that are barely
witnessed in more affluent countries. If that is our heartfelt and motivating concern, and not the comfort or
convenience of our privileged lives within our local communities, then perhaps we can rightfully identify ourselves as a
founding sharer and an ambassador to humanity. But if our idea of sharing remains limited to the confines of our own
neighbourhood or social peer group, then we clearly have no idea what sharing can achieve as the royal road towards
environmental sustainability, peace and justice.
There are innumerable communities around the world that have attempted to share among themselves and achieve a more
harmonious and sustainable way of life, however it is time to ask ourselves what such communities can achieve when the
world’s ecological crises are rapidly reaching the point of no return. Manifold spiritual communities and eco-villages
have long emerged and then disbanded in the fullness of time, although the intensifying trends of commercialisation over
recent decades may eventually end all possibilities of achieving a self-sustaining community idyll, so long as these
trends are left unchecked in a world that is becoming irremediably divided and environmentally degraded. This is not to
decry the various grassroots initiatives that aim to reduce individual carbon footprints within modern societies by
conserving the Earth’s natural resources, many of which provide invaluable models for how to shift towards sustainable
modes of food production, housing, transport, energy generation and so on. The ethics of sharing and sufficiency on a
small and local scale may soon become the watchwords of our time, as long recognised by sustainability practitioners in
various fields, although even these pioneers of community resilience often fail to mention the words ‘poverty’ or
‘hunger’ in their literature and ideas.
Does this mean they are empowered with an awareness of the whole, and immersed in the human reality of the critical
world situation? To believe we can find peace by retreating to a remote community is still a fantasy, no matter how
frugal or self-sustaining our lifestyles, especially when considering that the civilisational crisis we face is
spiritual in its origins and the outcome of millennia of destructive human behaviours, leading to the repetition of
gross injustices and divisions that we have all played a part in throughout our many past incarnations. The very idea of
leading a peaceful, secluded and sustainable way of life amidst all the suffering and turmoil of these troubled times is
actually to divide oneself from our inner spiritual unity, unless we also contribute our energies towards creating a
more equal world in which everyone has their basic needs permanently secured. That spiritual understanding, that inner
realisation, and that motivating ideal is the only real peace we can experience within ourselves at this perilous
juncture in history, as realised through the knowledge that we are not alone in the struggle for a world that ‘shares’
in any meaningful sense of that term.
The beginning of ‘shareism’
What then of the modern evangelists for sharing whose intentions remain knowingly or unwittingly overshadowed by
commercialisation, those who have already undignified the principle of sharing with their mental blindness and concern
for moneymaking? To be interested in the sharing economy without any concern for the dire suffering of others means that
your ideas are merely created by habitual thoughts, without connecting to the inner awareness of the heart. Hence you
will only succeed in reducing a profoundly human and spiritual conception into another ‘ism’ that has no relationship
whatsoever with the real nature of justice, balance or the oneness of humanity. Out of your desire to create and enjoy a
new method for comfortable living, you will inadvertently abduct the principle of sharing for your own self-interested
pursuits, until shareism becomes the norm. Is that not already the case, and should not the proponents of sharing in its many commercialised
forms thus be ashamed of themselves? With the obvious knowledge that extreme poverty is still rampant on this Earth, how
is it possible that the idea of sharing is not directed towards saving our brothers and sisters who are incessantly
dying from preventable diseases or starvation, if not as a result of war or climate change? What makes man so blind, so
poor within and indifferent to the One Life that surrounds him? Why does he limit his awareness to his community, to his
new innovations and his fragmented way of life by continuously being attached to his indifference—an indifference that
dismisses the wisdom and the many silent cries of his heart? What makes man so small, so trapped and confused within the
mechanism of his vain ideations, when he is so free, so great within the very presence of his own soul—a soul with a
divine purpose that says LOVE ALL and SACRIFICE FOR ALL THAT LIVES…?
To pursue the idea and praxis of sharing within the paradigm of commercialisation is futile in the end, for the two
concepts are antithetical in both their inner and outer expression. As we have previously observed, one is divisive in
its complexity, while the other is unifying in its simplicity. One is manipulative, amoral and harmful towards both man
and the lower kingdoms of nature, while the other is predicated on fairness, harmlessness, awareness, respect and the
will-to-good—even love and the profoundest understanding of compassion which our present-day culture has again degraded
into its lowermost and often sentimental meaning. Surely the thoughtform of a sharing economy will evolve into a more
moral and inclusive idea over time, but as long as it is not grounded in the political meaning of justice for the
world’s poor, then it is certain that the transformative vision of sharing resources among governments will remain in
its infancy for many, many years to come.
There are an increasing number of intellectuals who are now beginning to engage with the authentic meaning of sharing as
a new economic and political paradigm, but even these inspired analyses and proposals generally omit the fact that
millions of innocent lives could be saved each year from avoidable poverty-related causes, if only the plentiful
resources of this world were rightfully shared. While it is an encouraging sign that many able thinkers are examining
the concepts of sharing, solidarity and the commons through an academic lens, let us also ask ourselves what our
scholarly definitions will achieve for the very poorest citizens who are desperately asking their governments to share a
measly portion of the nation’s wealth, just so they and their family can eat a square meal each day. That modest plea
from an impoverished person is actually the embodiment of the sharing economy in all its purity and essence, so how does
the well-fed theoretician of economic sharing somehow ignore this simple truth? The call for sharing in its manifold
forms is invariably an expression of common sense, although it is possible to respond to common sense in an overly
cerebral manner that can exclude the less educated citizens and eventually confuse us, misguide us and entangle us in
endless hypothetical debates about the right path forwards. For this reason, any investigation into the meaning of a
sharing economy must begin with an a priori understanding that chronic undernourishment must be effaced from this Earth as a leading societal and political
priority, from which position our many plans and proposals for implementing the principle of sharing into world affairs
cannot go too far astray.
Consider an analogy with the physicians who work for Médecins Sans Frontières and would like to see an end to the
insanity of war, but first they must deal with the reality that thousands of people in conflict zones are being
neglected by their governments, and are thus in need of life-saving medical attention that is sorely lacking in this
sorrowful world. In a parallel sense, the intellectual idea of sharing within modern societies is important to debate
and hypothesise, but first we must redirect our attention to the millions of people in poorer countries who continue to
suffer from severe deprivations without any form of government welfare or public support. Try to contemplate the inner
relationship you may have between your own daily concerns in a relatively privileged and comfortable household, and the
reality of life for a person who is at this moment dying from a preventable disease or malnutrition. Your heartfelt
awareness about the lives of those who are less fortunate than yourself, and your private intention to do something to
help end this spiritual blasphemy in our midst—that awareness is, in itself, an awareness of the need for a sharing
economy to be instituted across the world. Any act that tries to contribute towards ending the prevalent suffering
caused by absolute poverty is, in itself, the purest expression of a sharing economy via the heart, via our maturity and
via common sense, especially if that act is focused on trying to persuade our political representatives to commit to
sharing the resources of the world.
Have you ever held someone in your arms who is dying from malnutrition in a poor region such as sub-Saharan Africa,
knowing that back home your family and friends are able to access adequate food, healthcare, shelter and sanitation as a
basic human right? From that profound and tragic experience, it is assured that your understanding of the sharing
economy will assume a different resonance and meaning within your heart and mind, and it is unlikely to be directed
solely towards oneself and one’s more advantaged social peer group. Consider also the person who loses a dearly beloved
family member from an incurable disease or tragedy, who then transforms their life purpose by dedicating their time and
energies to preventing others from befalling a similar fate, such as by creating a charitable organisation or
campaigning for social change. Clearly as the result of a sad event in that person’s life, their inner awareness and
empathy has been markedly expanded and redirected, while their erstwhile complacency on that issue has completely
vanished. Such is the hope for the sharing economy idea, and on a scale that is inconceivable, if the millions of people
who enjoy an adequate standard of living can together expand their empathic awareness to include the needless
deprivations experienced by the poorer two-thirds majority of the world population.
We are not trying to contemplate the deeper philosophical meaning of compassion in these sparse analogies, but simply
trying to observe, in straightforward human terms, the need for greater awareness in our societies through the common
sense that arises from an engaged heart. It not only concerns the need to end the appalling reality of hunger and
life-threatening poverty; it is also about love in the most general and pragmatic sense, as expressed in a civilised and
moral attitude to life that cares about the needless suffering of others. The author has discussed before the meaning of love from a basically spiritual and psychological perspective, which is a motivating energy that can
bring about the total reorientation of a person’s life pursuits once an awareness of the heart determines one’s inner
attitudes and behaviours. We can observe the psychological and spiritual transformation of an individual via the
awakening of the heart in almost every department of human activity, and the misguided advocates of a commercialised or
personalised form of economic sharing are certainly no exception to this rule. All we can hope is that the
self-proclaimed sharers of today will become aware of how they are degrading the higher meanings of this misapplied
principle, and thence change their ways by joining with the millions of others who are valiantly fighting for a just
world that permits no-one to suffer or die from a lack of access to life’s essentials.