Posts Tagged ‘commons’

Regenerative cultural values

January 28, 2024

Faced with the apparent visions of the future as involving ‘Collapse’ or ‘Authoritarian continuance and rising dystopia’. A group I belong to, associated with the Anthropocene Transitions Network, aimed for a an alternate vision of ‘Regenerative Cultural Values’.

This is some basic thinking on what is involved, obviously it is not just my own thinking (see ‘ecology of mind’ below), but I don’t want to scapegoat anyone else, for its deficiencies.

The Problem?

Apart from disliking the targets of ‘Collapse’ and ‘Authoritarianism’, there are lots of consultative processes in modern society, which essentially seem to be set up so people can drain themselves in effort, to be ignored by the powers that be. This is a common neoliberal consultative practice. The aim of the consultation seems to be to support whatever action is being taken by the authorities, and pretend it has support. Perhaps we can add this “Neoliberal Consultative Process” to the targets of Collapse and Authoritarianism as it can be part of either.

Is there some other way?

What are Regenerative cultural values?

Regenerative cultural values aim to revitalise values and relationships and make them as functional, participatory and resilient as possible, so as to produce constructive ‘democratic’ change.

Regeneration appears to have to involve systems thinking as its base, and preferably complex systems theory. Complex systems thinking could also be called ‘ecological thinking,’ as seeing oneself and others as a system and acting in the midst of systems is part of the process of the new vision. It also involves the recognition that ecologies change, evolve and regenerate. They are not stable forever without force.

The term ‘ecology’ does not have to refer to ‘natural environments’, but can also refer to communities, and economies etc. All of these involve interaction with other participants and other systems, mutual influence, symbiosis, conflict and co-operation, and so on. ‘We’ spill out into the social culture, borrow other people’s ideas or language, are shaped by (and shape) traditions, use tools and objects to think with. As Gregory Bateson argued, our minds are not alone, but exist in an ecology of mind which extends way beyond our skins, with feedback and originality. In an ecology nothing dominates completely according to its will. The most dominant feature in most ecologies is the Sun. It does not control anything, but without it most ecologies would die.

Boundaries between different systems and different people tend to be fuzzy and vague, this ‘spill out’ is not unique.

Being outsiders within

However, we live in a hierarchical social system, and higher levels do try and control lower levels, rather than let those lower levels freely adapt to local conditions. Consequently, regenerative cultural values may need to separate from, or hide from, the hierarchies until they get established. That is, they may have to form what Geels has called ‘niches’ – areas of creativity which both avoid being: noticed until ready; pushed into the service of the hierarchies worldview or; crushed. They form ‘subcultures,’ ‘temporary Autonomous Zones’ or even act as hidden ‘parasites’ using the hierarchies without submitting to them.

Community

‘Community’ is a vague concept that carries a lot of baggage, but it is important.

What we can observe is that humans, if unobstructed, nearly always build something we can call ‘community’. In villages, suburbs, online groups, sports clubs, children’s sports, mother’s support, child minding groups, even in prisons, and so on. The trend is that people support each other to the degree possible, take note of each other, identify with each other, and build friendships and rivalries, and so on. Ideally they come to form a mutual ecology; community is not an on/off process but develops. ‘Community’ can also be a political term which indicates people are seeking recognition for their groups, and participation in wider spheres. All ‘healthy’ human systems probably involve some forms of community and relationships, not just with other local humans but with animals, surrounding environments and so on. Community does not have to be anthropocentric.

Community can arise out of ‘projects’, or people working on something for the common good, such as building a local arts/sports centre, developing community energy, helping people in floods or fires, protecting the local village from over-development or being overwhelmed with current strangers, preserving the local wildlife and their ecologies, recognising common responsibilities or ownership of rivers or woods or community gardens, and so on. Projects also involve mutual learning, and cohabitation with others.

If so, then one way of generating community is to help people to get working or projects relevant to them, without expecting the project to be accepted by the ‘powers that be.’ If possible perhaps the project should also be outside the influence of the powers that be (in a ‘niche’), so that these powers do not interfere, and processes get finished. This community might then extend into other fields not as remote from the hierarchy – say agitating the local council, people with similar views, or the police office, for support, and getting forest protection etc.

This kind of action can also build a political base to challenge the way things are done, or to support those local powers who might challenge the system that produces local and national misery.

Resilience

Resilience seems tied into an apparent paradox: allowing diversity and conflict can build unity on some occasions.

Deviance, diversity and conflict are necessary for resilient communities. A community of ‘perfect harmony’, probably has a limited number of roles, responses and modes of control, and probably is not capeable of surviving disharmony. It could find it difficult to try processes out to see if they work, because people and processes, have to follow the established and harmonious patterns. Diversity allows diversity of responses without planning, and evaluation of the responses, and hence more chance of adapting.

I suspect that a community only appears perfectly harmonious if there is ongoing threat of violence and suppression.

The challenge is that the community has to be able to survive the internal conflict which can be generated by diversity, and levels of diversity may have to be experimented with. People still have to manage to think of themselves as ‘together’ with each other and their various ecologies even in diversity. I suspect that it is social tradition, rather than human nature which makes this difficult, but I could be wrong. This is especially so where the general political ecology acts to force people into opposing ‘sides’, but if people are aware of the engineered polarisation they can try to reject it, and be open to one another.

Openess – the Thou

I have written elsewhere of Martin Buber’s idea of ‘it’ and ‘thou.’ [1], [2], [3] This is an easy, and apparently trivial distinction, but it seems important.

When we make something or someone, an ‘it’, then we consider that person or thing to be without complexity, without valuable being. They are something to be used and manipulated, perhaps discarded with complacency. Culturally, ‘we’ seem to regard most ‘things’ in the world as ‘its’ – we pollute air and rivers, move rocks without care, chop down trees to stop the mess of dropped leaves and so on. There is no real care needed for an ‘it’.

However, when we regard something, someone or some process as a ‘thou,’ we approach it as a being that is open, that must be learned about, lived with, cared for and so on. It is a bit unclear in Buber, but it would seem to be possible not only to treat those we regard as deviant as worthwhile thous, but all the ecologies we live with. People can treat their cars, their pets, their toys, trees, beaches, special rock platforms etc, as thous if they care about them. The idea of caring for the non-human as if they were beings of worth, is not foreign to us. Thouness and caring seem to be related.

This caring does seem foreign to the idea that monetary profit is the only value, because with profit, some things have to become its, to be sold, destroyed or polluted, and things which cannot be profited from are valueless by definition.

It seems part of the basis of regenerative cultural values to rediscover the ‘thouness’ of life and being, perhaps within a community project of some kind.

Summary

Regenerative cultural values, begin locally. [Added from Ken McLeod: where “local” can reference both spatial and cultural proximity].

They begin in the making of community, collaboration, conflict and recognition.

Regenerative values are open to the thouness of people and ‘nature’.

Regenerative values accept that diversity is useful for survival and adaption, despite the unease it may generate.

Community may be generated through projects of general value to the the local people.

These projects may need to be hidden, or to engage only briefly with established hierarchies, until they are robust or finished.

Once the projects have results, then it may be useful to venture out into the world, gain support and give support.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The non-commons

September 9, 2022

The non-tragedy of the commons

I assume people know about the so called “tragedy of the commons” which was later retracted by its populariser, Garrett Hardin. The theory is that naturally selfish people will seek to take personal advantage of common land, and this uninhibited usage will eventually destroy the land through over-grazing over-cropping, over-fishing, etc.

This proposal stands in contrast to the empirical fact that there are commons on the Earth, which have survived as commons or shared property for hundreds and possibly thousands of years. What we might call hunter and gather societies generally exist with common ownership of ‘country’; the people are connected with the land they roam upon. They may even share the land with other groups.

These commons are managed by the users, who also have an interest in the commons being maintained for their own, and other locals’, benefit. So they try to stop people over-exploiting the commons – just as non-commoners might try and stop other forms of theft. You can look up the work of Elinor Ostrom and her followers if you choose to see how this works.

It appears that capitalist modes of behaviour, and capitalist ‘common sense’, destroy the commons. In capitalism people’s control over non-private property which serves them all, appears to be largely unrecognised by business or State. Capitalists regularly pollute the air, rivers, fields, towns, and so on – because they have ‘defined’ and ‘enforced’, this common space as an ‘externality’ – something which is external to the regime of private property, or economic cost, and therefore does not count. The power of local people over non-private property, or even their private property that obstructs big business, is often destroyed or marginalised. Consequently, we could expect capitalists to behave disastrously towards commons in the way that Hardin described, and indeed many argue that taking away the commons was part of the transition to capitalism. Therefore his article could better be titled “The Tragedy of all commons and common resources under Capitalism.”

By saying that people cannot naturally own things in common, he also works to discourages people from working together for common production and for shared benefits. The alternative is that one person has to own property, and the others labour for the owner, in return for the common benefits. This helps establishes an authoritarian basis for common work, and gets rid of democratic voices.

This hostile attitude to commons, and the declaration that common selfishness will destroy it, is possibly one of the roots of the ecological crisis. Common and private land, and anything else, can be happily ruined by its owners. Any commons, again including the air and the climate, can be ruined if it is not privately or State owned, or if the owners don’t have comparable power to those doing the ruining. Capitalism assumes Common Property is up for defacement and destruction, and that there is no such reality as common benefit without the exchange of money. The regime assures people that state owned property (crown land etc) is always vulnerable to being sold off to people with influence.

Pro-capitalist attack on the commons and defense of the non-commons

I was recommended to read a libertarian article on the impossibility of common property, which is interesting and a bit of an illumination of how neoliberalism works as theory. The argument goes like this:

  • Liberty is bound up in individually, or corporately owned, private property and with capitalism.
  • Hence everything should be made into private property to maximise liberty.
  • Collective property of any type, other than corporately owned, leads to other people telling you what to do (what commoners might call ‘managing shared resources’), which is bad.
  • Liberty appears to be about being able to buy what you can afford and sell what you have. Nothing else.
  • Therefore collective property, or commons, which cannot be sold, should be banned to preserve liberty and taken into private hands. [People with property seem to have the right to tell other people what to do, without it being a violation of liberty]
  • Everyone who believes in the possibility of collective property or public goods, not impinging on your right to do whatever you want, is an idiot who believes in pixie dust and the virtue of officials.
  • Free Markets on the other hand, are absolutely wonderful, and have no problems at all. There are no power imbalances in free markets. Even Mother Teresa would recognise that they are morally superior to systems which have public goods, commons, or collective forms of property. Capitalism is perfect and can only be improved by destroying stupid commons and selling off collective goods to those who can afford them, so they can control them and look after them.
  • Even public institutions should be sold off. Private police, and private courts, will support everyone’s property rights, not just their owner’s interests, or the rich who can pay more for the services. There is apparently no conflict of interest, because there is competition.
  • The idea of collective property and public goods only exists to support non-libertarian state power structures. Collective and shared property does not exist without the State. There has never been collective property without a state.
  • Once you realise all of this you will be like Frodo and chuck the evil ring of collective property into a volcano and let freedom, joy and happiness rule.

If it is not clear, I think this argument is largely glib, contradictory, unconvincing and ignorant of counter-evidence – and most of the statements could easily be reversed (“Liberty is bound with collectively owned and controlled property,” “Accumulation of private property leads to people being able to command others”) – but like most neoliberal or libertarian arguments, does help boost corporate power and control over people’s lives and freedoms. It justifies business destroying commons or stealing commons and turning them into non-commons in the name of liberty. It acts as a warning of the probable loss, and precariousness, of certain non-capitalist rights.

Tragedy of the non-commons

In some ways the article meshes with another article of Hardin’s, Lifeboat ethics, where he argues against environmentalists who say that “no single person or institution has the right to destroy, waste, or use more than a fair share of [the planet’s] resources” by suggesting we are in a lifeboat and should leave the poor (or the people in less ‘safe’ prosperity) to drown, so we can survive. Helping them simply overloads the lifeboat and we all die…. As there is no commons, and we are all thieves anyway, we don’t need to worry about those who are destroying the planet or how they do it – we just leave the poor to die and celebrate our apparent safety.

He also states: “To be generous with one’s own possessions is quite different from being generous with those of posterity.” However, that is precisely what he is doing, sacrificing posterity’s common good, for the personal present day good of the planet destroyers or the polluter elites.

We also don’t know we are safe from the planet destroyers. Self interested people, accepting this capitalist ethic, should perhaps wonder why they should assume the planet destroyers will let them use the lifeboat and not just push them away?

Commons in Practice

As stated earlier Garret Hardin in his later life recognised that the Tragedy of the Commons occurred when the commons wasn’t “well managed.” He probably realised this when, after much discussion with Elinor Ostrum, he recognised that some commons had lasted for thousands of years. (see also Buck)

For some reason his back down is nowhere near as well known as the original paper. Probably the original paper serves a more acceptable pro-capitalist ideological purpose.

So to reiterate. The forces disrupting commons tend to be:

  • Violence by the dominant classes. Generally aristocrats or capitalist, stole the commons for themselves and threw the people off, saying the land had no real ownership so it was theirs.
  • Ideologies that say everyone should exploit any situation for maximum profit as with neoliberal egotistical capitalism.

The tragedy is brought about by unequal power and capitalism, not by the human nature of the commoners.

Successfully run commons, could be considered ‘socialism’ in action.

Significant property is shared, utilised and cared for, and people who would rip it off, are ‘punished’ by the collective (reprimands, silence etc) or slowly have their rights to use commons taken away. Commons users can democratically participate in the administration (usually as a family unit) of the commons, and there is no significant inherited privilege to use force against other commoners other than to protect the commons from exploitation or appropriation, as agreed to by other participants.

The tragedy of the commons should be seen as a reason for regulating capitalists and stopping them from destroying other people’s collective property, rights and livelihood for the capitalist’s own profit, as all polluting companies do by poisoning air, water, land, ecologies and so on, to lower their costs and increase their profit. We, the people and the ecologies we live in, should not be devalued in comparison with private property or private profit.

Tags:,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »