In the months since graduating from grad school, I've inadvertently dedicated my life to the notion of a “share economy.” I develop classes and curriculum for a coworking collective and started a nonprofit tool library. Through these endeavors I also started a project called #ShareLocal that serves as a network for share projects in Northern Nevada. These projects aren't surprising to me or anyone who knows me; my friends tease that I’m a futurist, but it’s true, because I believe the future deserves to be free. And that word carries weight for me beyond cost or liberty.

But it’s a tricky place to be in. Because I, proponent of all things accessible, sustainable and collaborative, have to somehow reconcile this unwavering philosophy with the need to make money and have a livelihood and “play nice” in a capitalist society that inherently rejects a true share culture. So when I read The Case Against Sharing this morning while drinking coffee and budgeting—my daily activity—I found myself, despite the headline, nodding along in agreement.

In the article, author Susan Cagle explores the contradictory logistics and sentiments of the burgeoning “share economy.” Cagle, for the most part, is calling out the problems with large “share” companies like Airbnb, Lyft and Uber. While I think that these companies are offering services to help solve some problems—reusing resources and reducing reliance on corporate entities, to name a few—they’re still a part of systematic economic imbalance. Because these services are not share services; they’re rental services. And it’s time we call them as such. Sure, share sounds prettier, but it’s taking away the meaning from actual share projects that have a legitimate chance at resurrecting struggling communities by giving the power back to the people.

The biggest problem with the share economy? It’s an economy. It’s an industry. Now, before you come swooping in to school me on economics, I understand that “economy” is not synonymous with “money.” It’s a system in which goods and resources are exchange for value. But value comes in more than just dollar signs.

For the share model to work, it needs to be less about economy, and more about community. For it to be sustainable, it needs to be local.

If I’m venturing into ooh-scary-communist talk, well… surprise! Cooperatives, collectives and homesteading are cultures rooted in socialist and anarchist ideology. Because these kinds of projects are owned by people in smaller communities, ownership is shared by the people who invest their time and energy into these projects. While this model is far from perfect, it ensures that success is—you guessed it—shared. It also gives communities agency and an even playing field to solve their own problems rather than be pushed away by gentrification.

So why can’t we own this? The start-up world loves words like disrupt and revolutionize. Those are heavy words with big promises, historically used by rebels and anarchists, and they've been co-opted. Sharing is a radical concept because it has the power to topple major industries. It decentralizes and redistributes the power back to where most people can actually impact it. So now sharing, too, is a term that’s been co-opted and misused to the point that new share projects are automatically seen as a trend, rather than a communal idea that’s existed for thousands of years.

Know what’s really disruptive? Not franchising. Know what’s really revolutionary? Changing society’s values and expectations so that the disenfranchised have a stake in their communities and livelihoods.

So when Cagle asks, “What is sharing?” this is what it means to me:
It means that we share the planet we live on and owe it to one another to make our cities decent places to live. It means we share basic resources—like space, food, knowledge and tools—with one another in exchange for the value that works best for our community.

I admit that this is harder than it seems, as is any functioning economy. For now, money is inextricably linked to share projects, and it has to be in some ways. I have to charge membership fees to keep the tool library afloat, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, because it gives members some stake in my organization and access to hundreds of items that cost me (the sole director) time, energy and money to manage. But that’s why I have membership fees, not rental fees per item; to do so would be a disservice to my community. Because they don’t need another Home Depot—they need a safe, reliable place to get the tools they need by people who know how to use them. And that is valuable.

Services like Airbnb and Uber have their own place in society, and they've helped many people find alternative incomes in a changing economy, and I think that’s awesome. It might work for now. But let’s call things what they really are, and let’s not stop at the Uberized economic model as the vision for the future. Because we can do better, and think bigger, and actually have a chance at revitalizing cities sustainably.

I support, and will fight for, a share culture until everyone on this planet has access to education, food, tools, transportation and housing. A future doesn't exist for a world in which access is unattainable. •

I highly recommend reading Cagle’s article, which also happens to be beautifully illustrated. Follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on my blog. For more information on the share movement, visit Shareable.net, which does a good job of highlighting community share projects around the world.