This Week: Theft, Knowledge, Property

"Quote" of the Week: "Spread throughout this issue"

The Idea of The Commons

The Commons and Egypt
Action Steps to Build The Commons
Educate Yourself About The Commons

Greetings,

I've occasionally over the years been accused of telling my readers "the truth." I always deny it. I believe that what I am really doing—and what people really value—is that I'm pushing as hard as I can to understand the important ideas that can help us all to orient ourselves in a confusing world. What I do is go out and dig around to see what useful things I can find out, and I invite you all along, not only to find out whatever I find out, but also to observe how I go about finding it out. Many people over the years have told me that this voyage of discovery is really the best part about Nygaard Notes. They know it's not about "the truth," whatever that is.

The other reason I deny trying to tell people "the truth" is that I'm so acutely aware of being wrong so much of the time. This current series is a great example. Some may recall that when it started, 'way back on January 11th, I called it the Social Wealth Series. Well, the more I looked into it the less happy I was with the term, as I explain this week in "The Commons Defined." So now I guess I'm calling it The Commons Series. I hope my definition of the term and my explanation of why I prefer it will be helpful. And there may be some truth in there somewhere, as well. I'm not promising anything!

I said last week that the idea of Common Wealth goes far beyond court systems and highways and the Internet, and so it does. What I am now calling The Commons includes some of the most tangible things we can imagine, and also some of the least tangible, even spiritual, things. There is land in The Commons. Our common language, and every other language, is a part of The Commons. Some things that we like to call "resources," which sometimes reside in places that nobody "owns," like the deep seabed and outer space, are a part of The Commons. Religious practices and beliefs are a part of The Commons. One might even say that those things we call "rights" are a part of The Commons, especially when they are understood to be "inalienable" rights that cannot be taken away because they "belong" to everyone by virtue of their humanity.

My point in writing this series is to, first of all, question the very idea of ownership. It's only because we have so deeply internalized the principles of capitalism that we think that everything is the property of someone. It wasn't that long ago that nobody thought that way, and I am hoping that we move on the next, post-capitalist, phase of human history before too long, as well.

In this final installment of this series on The Commons I take a stab at defining what it is that makes up my vision for the next phase, and I offer a few ideas on action steps for those who, like me, want to accelerate the process of building a society in which stewardship and sharing take the place of ownership and owning.

So, let's get to it. If this issue, or this series, stimulates you in any way, please write to me and tell me what you're experiencing. Reading your letters and emails is a big part of what I do.

Collaboratively yours,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week

There's no "Quote" of the Week this week, because this issue is so full of quotations that I just couldn't do another one. Maybe I'll have an extra "Quote" next week.

The Idea of The Commons

This series started out being called the Social Wealth series. I'm re-thinking the terminology, because what am I really talking about when I speak of "Social Wealth"? The idea of "Wealth" starts an unfortunate train of thought that implies enrichment, exploitation, accumulation, commodification. That's not what I'm trying to talk about. This whole train of thought began when I was thinking about taxation. Who has the right to claim a society's wealth? That's what got me on the "wealth" idea. But the more I look into it, the more I think we need to go beyond the idea of wealth, and its companion concept of property.

When it comes to managing the wealth and productivity of a society, so-called conservatives like to talk about property rights and the virtues of private ownership. Liberals, and even radicals, counter by speaking in favor of things like public ownership, state ownership, collective ownership, and the socialization of ownership (there's the "social" in "social wealth"). I want to go beyond all of that to speak of "non-ownership."

A Canadian group called the Forum on Privatization and the Public Domain says it well: "It is not just a question of private versus public, individual versus the state. There is much collective activity in between that has historically been described as 'commons.'" That's precisely what I'm talking about: not a different, better, kind of ownership, but rather this idea of something outside of ownership. I'm aware that, in a culture so deeply indoctrinated with capitalist ideology—that is, an ideology based on individuals who own things—this will sound really foreign to most people.

In fact, I have been researching this for weeks, and have reluctantly come to believe that we don't even have language in the United States to adequately express this concept.

There is a phrase, "The Commons," which I first mentioned a couple of issues ago. It's not perfect, but it's the closest I can find. What I will do here is offer a series of comments by various people talking about the idea. I don't entirely agree with any of them, and I'll explain why, but I think the overall set of comments will give a sense of the vision I have. At the end I'll try to offer my brief synthesis of the concept as I understand it after a bunch of research.

1.
On page five of his new book All That We Share, editor Jay Walljasper asks "What Is a Commons-Based Society?" His answer:

"A new way of life that values what we share as much as what we own. A commons-based society refers to a shift in policies and values away from the market-based system that has dominated modern society for the past two hundred years, with a particular vengeance in the past thirty. A commons-based society would place as much emphasis on social justice, democratic participation, and environmental protection as on economic competitiveness and private property. Market-based solutions would be valuable tools in a commons-based society, as long as they do not undermine the workings of the commons itself."

That's not good enough for me, as I don't think that "market-based solutions" can exist without undermining the workings of the commons; they require different ways of thinking about things. I don't want "competitiveness and private property" to be the standard that tells us how much "emphasis" we need to put on more humane values. I want as little competitiveness as possible, at least on important things.

2.
As for property, here's David Berry, a British researcher, writing in Free Software Magazine in 2005, in an article entitled "The Commons as an Idea—Ideas as a Commons." His opening paragraph said:

"The concept of the commons has a long heritage. The Romans distinguished between different categories of property, these were: Firstly, res privatæ, which consisted of things capable of being possessed by an individual or family. The second, res publicæ, which consisted of things built and set aside for public use by the state, such as public buildings and roads. The third, res communes, which consisted of natural things used by all, such as the air, water and wild animals. The commons, or res communes, has had an important social function in our society, it provides a shared space, a resource that is shared within a community, a network of ideas and concepts that are non-owned."

This idea of "non-owned" totally displaces the idea of "property," since things that are not owned cannot be "property. OK, now we're going somewhere. Berry's article can be found here.

3.
Ownership, under capitalism, is about control. It sounds like this: "I can do whatever I want with my property." Law professor Lawrence Lessig wrote an article in 2001 in Foreign Policy Magazine called "The Internet Under Siege," in which he addressed this aspect of The Commons, saying:

"A 'commons' is a resource to which everyone within a relevant community has equal access. It is a resource that is not, in an important sense, 'controlled.' Private or state-owned property is a controlled resource; only as the owner specifies may that property be used. But a commons is not subject to this sort of control. Neutral or equal restrictions may apply to it (an entrance fee to a park, for example) but not the restrictions of an owner. A commons, in this sense, leaves its resources 'free.'"

I am trying to get away from this idea of everything being a "resource," so that's my difference with Lessig. But he raises a good point: If there is a part of the world that we want to use, extract things from, play with, or exploit in some way, and if this part of the world is not subject to the control of its "owner," then how do we decide who gets to do anything with it? And who—if not the owner—is responsible for its preservation and protection?

4.
There's something in international law known as the Common Heritage of Mankind concept, which is basically a codification of the idea of The Commons as it applies to so-called "international spaces," like Antarctica, outer space, and the oceans. Author Kemal Baslar says that the concept "is one of the most extraordinary developments in recent intellectual history and one of the most revolutionary and radical legal concepts to have emerged in recent decades." (He no doubt means "at least outside of traditional indigenous cultures, where such ideas have survived for millennia.") When you see the five core components of the common heritage of mankind concept, you'll see why Baslar says that "no other concept, notion, principle or doctrine [in international law] has brought as much intensive debate, controversy, confrontation and speculation as the common heritage phenomenon" has since its emergence in 1967.

Here are the five components: 1. There can be no private or public appropriation; that is, no one legally owns common heritage spaces; 2. Representatives from all nations must manage resources contained in such a territorial or conceptual area on behalf of all, because commons area is considered to belong to everyone; 3. All nations must actively share with each other the benefits acquired from exploitation of the resources from the common heritage region; 4. There can be no weaponry or military installations established in territorial commons areas, and; 5.The common space should be preserved for the benefit of future generations.

Baslar has a problem with the language here, as do I. If it were up to either of us, "we would not use 'heritage' which derives from inheritance and is 'inherently' associated with property received from our ancestors." Baslar says he "would prefer the term 'the Common Trust of Mankind." A trust is when one has the responsibility for and authority over something, yet does not own it. I think this is better than "inheritance."

5.
The Twentieth-Century Ghanaian leader Nana Sir Ofori Atta I famously said that "land belongs to a vast family of whom many are dead, a few are living and a countless host are still unborn." I like the notion of "belonging," which doesn't necessarily mean "owning." In this sense of "belonging," our reflexive (in the West) association of "rights" that go with "ownership" becomes meaningless. If something "belongs" to all of these people across endless time, then there are no individual "rights" that could belong to any current generation—let alone any individual.

Now, after all that, here is my own definition of The Commons:

The Commons is the realm of non-owned things, both tangible and intangible. The Commons are held in trust by all humans, and all humans are responsible for their stewardship. All people and all beings have equal claim to co-existence with The Commons, and a corresponding responsibility to honor, respect, and share The Commons to the best of their ability and understanding.

The Commons and Egypt

Everybody is talking about Egypt, so I thought I would tell a brief story about how the idea of The Commons is a part of the story of Egypt, even if nobody talks about it.

A million people work in the fishing industry in Egypt, but it's getting harder to do so because of privatization. An article in Middle East Report (published by the excellent Middle East Research and Information Project, or MERIP) from the year 2000 was entitled "Mining for Fish: Privatization of the 'Commons' Along Egypt's Northern Coastline." The article explains that "Through privatization of access to common property resources, rising costs, removal of subsidies and inappropriately regulated fishing and enforcement, state policies [in Egypt] are forcing small fishers out of their way of life even while overall fish production is rising."

MERIP tells us that "Fishermen from [the area] demonstrated along the Cairo-Alexandria highway bordering the lake several times during the early 1980s to protest the degradation of the commons due to pollution and landscape change. The demonstrations were quickly quashed." The early 1980s was the early years of the Mubarek regime. The dictator is now gone, but the legacy of privatization remains.

The article adds that the US has been involved in this erosion of The Commons in Egypt. "Adopting [U.S. Agency for International Development] recommendations, over the last 20 years the Egyptian government has promoted privately run intensive fish farming along the Delta Lake shorelines—imposing exclusive access upon areas that were originally public domain and especially hurting small-scale subsistence and artisanal fishers."

The last section of the article is entitled "Loss of the Commons," and tells us that "In Egypt, 'efficient' management of fish resources has meant privatization of the commons, concentrating access to fish resources in fewer and fewer hands."

MERIP explains: "Fishing communities have a complex set of customary rights and social conventions to regulate their fishing and allow sufficient time for fish to breed and grow before harvesting, but these processes have all been altered by policies and practices beyond their control." That is, the Egyptian people are left with a system put in place by the now-departed dictator and his U.S. backers, and that system needs to be transformed if the Egyptian people are to truly see revolutionary change that makes their lives better. There is much wealth in Egypt—as there is everywhere—but it can only be of use if people have access to it and can control it in the interests of the current generation and also the generations to come. Privatization in Egypt, as elsewhere, promotes unsustainable practices in the service of short-term profit.

Mumia Abu Jamal stated in a recent post on Egypt that "Revolutions don't just change rulers—they change systems." Part of the Egyptian revolution (which is just beginning) will be to work to restore The Commons, much of which the dictator and his U.S.-backed system have sold to the highest bidders.

Action Steps to Build The Commons

If you are interested in the idea of The Commons and think that you might want to do something to promote the idea, and to promote policies and practices that support it, here are some ideas that I have come up with about what we can do. Add your own!

* First of all, begin to imagine The Commons. The bumper sticker for this might be: "Start Seeing The Commons." Often this will involve seeing things we see all the time, and simply realizing that they are a part of The Commons. Here's a short list of things to think about in this way: Social Security, the oceans, games, jokes, every idea you have ever heard or seen, religious texts and traditions, radiation, language (any language), sidewalks, outer space, human beings, pretty much anything preceded by the word "public" (public libraries, public schools, public parks, public airwaves. . .), the Polio vaccine, solar energy, wind energy, energy in general, beauty, culture, traditions.... The website "On the Commons" does a good job of pointing out how this concept impacts all kinds of issues.

* Begin to educate yourself on The Commons. Elsewhere in this issue I offer some people and organizations that I've found interesting and/or challenging in this regard.

* Support collective ownership. There are major struggles going on right now in Bolivia, in Egypt, and in the Nygaard Notes home state of Minnesota about how land is shared—or not shared—among different people and groups.

* Join in the struggle to slow or halt the process commonly known as "privatization." Understand that, whatever the intent may be, the effect of efforts to "privatize" property, government functions, jobs, and many other things is to reduce the size of The Commons and put more of our shared trust into the hands of individuals.

* A manifesto called "Reclaim the Commons" came out of the World Social Forum held in Belém do Pará (Brazil) in January, 2009. The organizers say that it is an "international mobilization campaign to reclaim, protect and re-create the commons." They further say that "We cordially invite everybody to sign the Manifesto, to discuss it and to spread the word." It doesn't seem to have a lot of momentum yet, so the effort can use your support. You can read the six-paragraph Manifesto, sign it, and contribute to the overall effort by going here.

* Since 1977 the International Indian Treaty Council has been "working for the Sovereignty and Self Determination of Indigenous Peoples and the recognition and protection of Indigenous Rights, Treaties, Traditional Cultures and Sacred Lands." They work a lot through the United Nations, as so many of the issues they address transcend national boundaries. For some native people, in fact, the whole idea of "national boundaries" is a part of the problem. Go to the website and check out the long list of issues and ideas that the IITC deals with every day.

* If you are interested in the issue of wild rice that I discussed a couple of issues ago, you should check out the White Earth Land Recovery Project, based on the White Earth Reservation in what is now known as Minnesota. You can learn about all kinds of stuff on their website, including the Indigenous Seed Sovereignty Network. You can also support the project by simply buying some of their products. Visit them online.

* The Great Lakes are near and dear to me personally, so I strongly support a new initiative that has as its mission "For the great lakes watershed to be declared and lived as a commons, public trust and protected bioregion." It's just getting off the ground, but you can learn more about it by going here.

* To take action on the issue of Internet Neutrality that I mentioned a couple of issues ago, start by checking out this coalition, coordinated by Free Press. And another important group, led by people of color, is Latinos for Internet Freedom.

* Finally, there's an 8-page flyer put out by the Council of Canadians that lists a whole bunch of campaigns and organizations—inside of Canada and out—many of which deal directly or indirectly with the issues discussed in this Nygaard Notes series.

Educate Yourself About The Commons

Here are a few individuals and groups whose work may be of interest if you wish to deepen your understanding of The Commons:

The cultural critic Lewis Hyde talks a lot about the "cultural commons," and he mentions on his website "the question of the commercialization of culture, exemplified at the moment by many things—the 'enclosure' of the public domain, the patenting of aboriginal medicines, proprietary control of genetic materials or of the internet, and the general market triumphalism that has followed the end of the Cold War." His website is HERE.

David Bollier describes himself as "an author, activist, blogger and consultant who spends a lot of time exploring the commons as a new paradigm of economics, politics and culture." His 2005 book "Brand Name Bullies: The Quest to Own and Control Culture" is highly entertaining and informative, as well. He is a co-founder of On the Commons, the website I reference often, and I found his 2002 article in the Boston Review—"Reclaiming the Commons"—to be helpful. Kind of lengthy, but helpful.

Maude Barlow is a Canadian author and activist who has been writing and working on issues of globalization and justice for decades. Her work on water is particularly noteworthy. Check out the project "Our Water Commons" and in particular check out "Our Water Commons: Toward a New Freshwater Narrative."

You would do well to read a bit by or about Elinor Ostrom, a political economist who thinks all the time about how people govern in The Commons (although she actually rejects the term, for technical reasons). She won a Nobel Prize for her thinking and writing about this stuff. Just look around online for Elinor Ostrom, or check out one of her numerous books.

The website On The Commons is a good place to start acclimating yourself to the world of The Commons. They have sections called "What is The Commons?", "Examples of The Commons", and "Commons 101." Plus lots and lots of essays that can help you see how The Commons is a part of many current issues, even when it may not be obvious at first glance. (There's a lot of space put into promoting the editor's new book, too, but that's hopefully temporary.)

A Canadian group, the Forum on Privatization and the Public Domain, is about consciousness-raising and education on the issues in its name. Click on "About the Forum" and then look at the little graphic "Crossing the line - the progress of privatization." That'll get you thinking! They're found here.

I've mentioned in these pages (NN #383) a place at the University of Massachusetts called the Political Economy Research Institute. They have a project called the Forum on Social Wealth that's worth a look. Here's what they say about what they do: "The Forum on Social Wealth aims to fashion a new 'cognitive frame' that recognizes how families, local communities, online networks, ecological systems and other non-market entities 'produce value,' not just in an economic sense, but in ways that matter socially, morally, and personally." Find them here.

If you look into the idea of The Commons, you will almost certainly run across the phrase "The Tragedy of the Commons." In fact, if you Google "The Commons," one of the first hits will be "Tragedy of the commons." The "tragedy" is that resources that are shared will always be overused and abused, resulting in ecological disaster. It's all based on a 1968 essay published in Science Magazine by a guy named Garrett Hardin, a California academic. It's one of the most-widely reprinted scientific essays you'll ever find, and that's too bad because of its flawed understanding of history, among other things. It's so influential that you may want to read it (it's about 10 pages long). It's all over the Internet, including here. If you do read it, I highly recommend that you also read "The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons," by Ian Angus, in the August 25th 2008 issue of MRZine. Go here for that one.

OK, that's good enough for starters.