Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Brian K. Murphy" <[email protected]> > Date: 13 augustus 2014 14:05:37 CEST > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: [WSF-Discuss] Richard Swift : Contemplating the Commons. > Reply-To: Discussion list about the WSF > <[email protected]> > > Excerpted with permission from S.O.S: Alternatives to Capitalism by Richard > Swift, Between the Lines, 2014 [http://btlbooks.com/book/sos ]. > ***************************************** > > http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1006.php > The Commons As a Fount of Hope > by Richard Swift > > The commons is not just a battlefield between corporate predators and those > who resist them - it is also a source of hope for those willing to imagine a > world beyond capitalism. It represents a space between the private market and > the political state in which humanity can control and democratically root our > common wealth. Both the market and the state have proved inadequate for this > purpose. In different ways, they have both led to a centralization of power > and decision-making. Both private monopolies and state bureaucracies have > proved incapable of maintaining the ecological health of the commons or > managing the fair and equitable distribution of its benefits. > The conservative ecologist Garrett Hardin's belief that the commons is facing > a tragedy was based on the notion that individual self-interest in exploiting > common resources was undercutting the overall health of those limited > resources.[1] Hardin maintained that individual self-interest trumps any > more-thoughtful notion of preserving resources for future use. External > restraints needed to be imposed. To prove his point, Hardin used the example > of the individual herder taking more than their share of pastureland. It > assumes a human behavior that is all too familiar to those who have seen the > global fishery depleted and seen watersheds destroyed by those hungry for > land to grow crops. > > Hardin's solution was to divide up the commons into private property and > public goods administered through the market and the state. But it scarcely > seems to follow that if the commons is turned into private property or put > under the supervision of some distant state bureaucracy that it will fare > much better. These days, the two will likely form a 'public-private > partnership' and any regime of fair-use regulation will go out the window. > There is also a question of scale. Is it better to have many small inshore > artisanal fishers or to turn the fishery over to Big Capital and the > high-tech trawler fleets? How could it make sense to push small farmers off > food-producing land so that large biofuel producers can help keep our > unsustainable love affair with the private automobile alive? When Hardin's > self-interested human nature is combined with large-scale private ownership, > it is likely to yield ever more short-sighted results. It is no way to manage > the commons. > > Managing the Commons > It is far better to rethink how the commons is managed and to include as many > of the players as possible so as to achieve a better result. If decisions > rested with local communities or regions, in combination with users of > various types both local and remote (environmentalists, fishers, miners, > farmers, consumers), and were placed within a legal framework that takes > future generations into account, it would seem likely to produce a more > durable form of stewardship. This might also in the long run develop other > potentialities of human behavior than the narrow self-interest that Hardin so > feared. > An alternative to capitalism must in the end be based on a more complex sense > of the human than orthodox economists' notion that we are all hardwired to a > rational calculus of individual costs and benefits. The influential commons > theorist Elinor Ostrom proposes a different, more optimistic, notion of the > human potential for managing the commons. Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in > economics for her seminal 1990 work Governing the Commons.[2] She believes > that: > "we live in a web of social relations infused with norms and values; we are > intrinsically co-operative and as a result collective action is possible and > may lead to sustainable and equitable governance practices."[3] > > Ostrom does not commit herself to an ambitious political program of replacing > state and market with more direct democratic practices. But she opens up the > debate about how the commons should be governed rather than just assuming the > market abetted by the state can handle the job. For Ostrom, a process of > 'deliberative democracy' is essential if there is to be proper human > stewardship of the commons. Others in the commons movement carry the analysis > further and see in the commons the potential to restructure the underlying > configuration of power between markets, states and societies. > > Democratic Promise > This begins to give some indication of the democratic promise of the commons > as a potential cornerstone in working out an alternative to capitalism. It > takes on the ascendant neoliberalism of the commons privatizers while > avoiding the dysfunctional effects of top-down state planning and centralized > public ownership that have undercut previous efforts to build a socialism > centered on the state. It moves beyond the sterile debate between an > inadequate state and a rapacious market. Instead it explores the idea of a > decentralized eco-democracy founded on what in the commons is vital to both > human and biosphere survival. It extends democratic decision-making to ensure > egalitarian economic outcomes. Here is one example of a commons-based popular > initiative from Greece (made vulnerable to privatization pressure because of > the debt crisis): > "In the Greek city of Thessaloniki, a coalition of citizens' groups called > Initiative 136 is creating a new organization to compete with Suez [a French > water corporation] in the tender for the Rebuilding the alternatives > Southern-style acquisition of the shares and the management of Thessaloniki's > Water and Sewerage Company. The dual goal is to prevent privatization and > replace the model of state administration that has failed to protect the > public character of water resources and infrastructure, and secure genuine > democratic control of the city's water by its citizens. The management would > be organized through local co-operatives, with citizen participation. > Initiative 136 is an effort to pre-empt privatization before it is > implemented, with an attractive concrete alternative in the form of improved > public management."[4] > > Multiply such initiatives many times and root them in the plethora of > different struggles currently being waged over the commons and you start to > get a sense of radical democratic promise. While the term 'commons' has many > meanings, both spiritual and philosophical, it is explored here mainly as a > political project. The core strategy is to design institutional arrangements > that move beyond state and market and put the commons back into the service > of society as a whole. The underlying principles of such institutions need to > be based on a variety of forms of self-organization and collective ownership > rights, which is exactly what Initiative 136 in Thessaloniki is attempting to > achieve. > > There are many other examples. The fishers of the Turkish port of Alanya > manage their part of the global commons by allocating each fishing boat a > clearly prescribed area of the Mediterranean according to the results of a > lottery. They then rotate from area to area: from September to January, every > day, each boat moves east to the next location. From February to May they > move west. All fishers get the same opportunity as the fish stocks migrate. > The system is collectively monitored and enforced. Problems are rare - and > generally resolved in the local coffee house. As Ostrom notes, "Alanya > provides an example of a self-governed, common-property arrangement in which > rules have been devised and modified by the participants themselves and also > are monitored and enforced by them."[5] The co-operative self-management of a > particular commons is likely to pay more attention to its long-term health > and viability. The implications can be far-reaching.: > "...the abiding logic of the commons is not based, as we have seen, on a > balancing act between the roles of the state and the market, but on the idea > of a polycentrism, decentralization and agreement between those touched by > common problems. More co-operation, less competition. More conservation and > the dynamics of resilience with regard to resources and their relationship > with the environment than erosion, limitless exploitation and unstoppable > appropriation."[6] > > New Horizontal Commons Democracy > Other commons-based movements, striving for an alternative ethos, are just > getting started. Attempts to create a horizontal commons democracy include > the Right to the City movement and other urban initiatives inspired by the > French libertarian Marxist Henri Lefebvre. Right to the City has gained > traction in South Africa with the Abahlali baseMjondolo (AbM) shackdwellers' > movement, which is active in a number of cities across the country, and in > the German city of Hamburg, where it has inspired a network of squatters, > tenants and artists. It has become a rallying point also in U.S. cities such > as Miami and Boston, and a source of inspiration in India, where Rajapalaya > Lake in central Bangalore has been the focus of a fight to maintain a livable > urban commons in very crowded conditions. > > Some struggles combine resistance and vision. In Quebec, 2012 witnessed a > remarkable movement of students against the commodification of education, > which put the besieged notion of free advanced education back on the public > agenda. Their struggle, which helped to bring down a provincial government, > could act as a template for those trying to recover the educational commons > from the pressures of commercialization. In the 1990s there was a successful > national fishers' strike in India that prevented the government of the time > from handing over the Indian fishery to big trawler operators. Countless > other examples, big and small, dot the daily press but are often just > restricted to obscure websites. > > Commons battles tend to gain attention when they precipitate or are part of > some larger struggle that involves active confrontation with those in power. > This is, however, really just the tip of the iceberg. If you examine the > specialist literature you will discover that almost everywhere there are > attempts to make the self-management of the commons a reality. There is an > International Journal of the Commons which acts as a forum for debate about > commons issues and case studies of successes and failures. A quick look > through the table of contents provides a sense of both the scope of the > commons and of initiatives being taken to extend their democratic > self-management. Here are but a few of the examples: > * The commons in a multi-level world > * The European Union Baltic fishery > * Irrigation systems in southeastern Spain > * A new marine commons off the Chilean coast > * The cockles fishery in coastal Ecuador > * Commons resource management in southern Namibia > * Technology-dependent commons > * Participative action in Kafue Flats in Zambia > * An environmental response to the globalizing forestry industry > * Southeast Asia: rewarding the upland poor for saving the commons > * Self-governance of the global microbial commons > * Icelandic health records > * The commons and community development in the eastern Caribbean.[7] > > This list provides evidence that the commons is not some obscure issue but > one that runs in one way or another through the lives of most of the world's > people, often on a daily basis. The scope is truly impressive. It also has a > lot of complex nuts and bolts to it with which we need to get to grips. But > it is a complexity we need to embrace, eschewing simple-minded monocultural > solutions in the process. This is an ongoing effort that will involve many. > > But it must remain beyond the scope of this essay. Here we are just > emphasizing the peril and potential of the commons. It has the potential to > become a new legal basis for the foundation of common rights to set against > the threat of public-private partnerships. If this does not succeed, then we > risk everything, not least our genetic make-up and that of the plants and > animals with which we share the earth, being turned into corporate private > property. The stakes are high. The commons are connected to our sense of > place, to our identities, livelihoods and self-expression - ultimately even > to our survival as a species. This is a good place to start envisioning a > radical democratic alternative that gives people a fundamental say in their > individual and collective futures. As such, recasting our relationship with > the commons should take pride of place as we build an alternative to > capitalism. * > > Excerpted with permission from S.O.S: Alternatives to Capitalism by Richard > Swift, Between the Lines, 2014 [SEE : http://btlbooks.com/book/sos ]. > > Endnotes: > > 1. Garrett Hardin, "The tragedy of the commons," Science 162 (1968). > > 2. Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons, Cambridge University Press, 1991. > > 3. Danijela Dolenec, "The commons as a radical democratic project," > br.boell.org Nov 2012. > > 4. municipalservicesproject.org > > 5. p2pfoundation.net/Cybernetics_of_the_Commons > > 6. Joan Subirats, "The commons beyond state and market," 12 Jul 2012. > > 7. thecommonsjournal.org > _______________________________________________ > ** WSFDiscuss is an open and unmoderated forum for the exchange of > information and views on the experience, practise, and theory of the World > Social Forum at any level (local, national, regional, and global) and on > related social and political movements and issues. Join in !** > _______________________________________________ > WSFDiscuss mailing list > POST to LIST : Send email to [email protected] > SUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to > [email protected] > UNSUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to > [email protected] > LIST ARCHIVES: > http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/ > LIST INFORMATION: > http://openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
