by We might think about two polar opposite and perhaps extreme visions of the “after capitalism” future: commons, in which things are not owned but shared by everyone, or commodities in which everything has a price. David Bollier gives
us a nice introduction to called Think Like a Commoner, that espouses the former (and warns of the latter).
What do we mean by commons? Commons include physical and intangible resources of all sorts, but “they are more accurately defined as paradigms that combine a distinct community with a set of social practices, values and norms that are used to manage a resource. Put another way, a commons is a resource + a community + a set of social protocols.” More simply: “managing a resource for everyone’s benefit.”
If you’re like me, the first idea that pops into your head is Garret Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons. Bollier notes how it has become a cautionary lesson about the impossibility of collective action. One can sense his exasperation when he makes the case that Hardin’s commons is not a commons! Hardin describes an open-access regime, or a free-for-all. But Bollier notes that a commons has boundaries, rules, social norms and sanctions against free riders. A commons requires that there be a community willing to act as a conscientious steward of a resource.
A few key principles of commons (from Ostrom):
- commons must have clearly defined boundaries so that commoners can know who has authorized rights to use a resource
- the rules for appropriating a resource must take account of local conditions and must include limits on what can be taken and how.
- Commoners must be able to create or influence the rules that govern a commons
- Must be willing to monitor how their resources are used (or abused) and must devise a system of sanctions
The ambition view suggested by Bollier is that the commons could be a vehicle for social and political emancipation and societal transformation. Thus the “commons economy” found its way into my initial list of after capitalism concepts.
On to commodities. Bollier puts it bluntly: “privatization and commodification of our shared wealth is one of the great unacknowledged scandals of our time.” Okay, but the link to commons is the process of enclosure of the commons: “Enclosures convert a system of collective management and social mutuality into a market order that privileges private ownership, prices, market relationships and consumerism.” Think of the king owning the forest in Robin Hood. And over time, more and more commons have been enclosed. “The goal is to treat people as individuals and consumers, not as communities with shared, long-term, nonmarket interests.” Regular readers of this blog will note the one of the key findings about values shifts from ConsumerShift was the growing anti-consumer ethos.
It is noted how Polyani observed that numerous resources — especially land, labor and money — be redefined as commodities, which he called “fictional commodities….that quickly expanded to other realms, making virtually everything subject to purchase and sale. This is happening to nature and to culture and….
A crucial point for me. Bollier pans claims made by contemporary economists that humans are essentially materialist individuals of unlimited appetites, and that these traits are universal. Quite the opposite. The real aberration in human history is the idea of Homo economicus. I touched on that recently in a post “Wiring or Choice?”
For Bollier a top priority should be expanding the conversation about the commons. I agree! – Andy Hines
Leave a Reply