George Monbiot writes that we have foolishly reduced human society to two elements: the state and the market. In fact, human society consists of four elements: the State, the Market, the Household and the Commons. We sometimes consider the value of the Household. But we have completely forgotten about the Commons:
That it is necessary to explain the commons testifies to their neglect (despite the best efforts of political scientists such as the late Elinor Ostrom). A commons is neither state nor market. It has three main elements. First a resource, such as land, water, minerals, scientific research, hardware or software. Second a community of people who have shared and equal rights to this resource, and organise themselves to manage it. Third the rules, systems and negotiations they develop to sustain it and allocate the benefits.
A true commons is managed not for the accumulation of capital or profit, but for the steady production of prosperity or wellbeing. It belongs to a particular group, who might live in or beside it, or who created and sustain it. It is inalienable, which means that it should not be sold or given away. Where it is based on a living resource, such as a forest or a coral reef, the commoners have an interest in its long-term protection, rather than the short-term gain that could be made from its destruction.
The commons have been attacked by both state power and capitalism for centuries. Resources that no one invented or created, or that a large number of people created together, are stolen by those who sniff an opportunity for profit. The saying, attributed to Balzac, that “behind every great fortune lies a great crime” is generally true. “Business acumen” often amounts to discovering novel ways of grabbing other people’s work and assets.
A vibrant commons reduces inequality because certain assets are collectively owned. When collective assets -- schools, airports, public lands -- are sold off to the highest bidder, everyone becomes poorer. Canada's new Infrastructure Bank is built on that principle. In my own province, a large portion of a public utility -- Ontario Hydro -- is being sold off to private investors.
The bottom line is this: When a government tells you it will decrease inequality while it sells off public assets, you're being lied to. Today's image is of The Boston Common.
Image: landscapenotes.com
14 comments:
An excellent reminder, Owen, of things we either take for greater or no longer even notice. The latter, of curse, is exactly what neoliberal governments, both at home an abroad, count on.
Ignorance -- and apathy -- are their great enablers, Lorne.
Oops. Again, I din't proofread. I meant 'granted', not 'greater', and 'course', not 'curse', although perhaps the latter best describes our apathy, Owen.
It was easy to understand what you meant, Lorne. They keys don't always print what I think they print.
The health of a society can be seen, even measured, by how well it maintains its commons including its public infrastructure, even health care. Canada weathered the 2008 financial crash much better than the US. The experts said it was because of our banking rules but I think it was because of our single payer health system. Few Canadians have to re-mortgage their houses to pay medical bills.
Symbols of failure include potholes, chain-link fencing topped with barbed wire (or concrete walls topped with cut glass), litter, armed police.
It's really easy to tell, Toby, what and how much a society owns in common.
I find Monbiot's prescription a bit ethereal but it must be recognized that landholdings in Britain have a significant component of hereditary grant by monarchs to nobles over the centuries for loyal service, particularly in wars. An interesting example is Jon Snow's/Kit Harrington's real-life love interest, Ygritte/Rose Leslie.
Leslie was raised at Lickleyhead castle, Aberdeenshire, her family's 15th century ancestral seat. They later moved to a 12th century castle, Warthill. For centuries her ancestors went off, fought for the king, and were rewarded with vast landholdings that remain in the family. The largest landholder in the UK is said to be the Church of England. These lands weren't bought. They were gifted/taken. Britain is today laced with footpaths that became commons by what is known as the "right of common usage" based on the principle of nec clam, nec vi, nec precario which means it was used without force, without secrecy and without permission for a certain period, 60-years I believe.
We have a much different situation in Canada where much of the land is held by the Crown, federal or provincial. It's fair to consider all of those holdings a commons held on behalf of the public by the state. This is where the theory of "natural capital" comes into play. For example, no one may log Crown land without a licence. And yet much of this valuable natural capital is essentially given away either free or for a fraction of its actual value by governments to special interests.
Stiglitz discusses this in "The Price of Inequality" where he demonstrates how modern equality is not really merit or market based but legislated by governments that allow all manner of exemptions, deferrals and grants (out of the public purse) or allow the use of land (think of the Athabasca tailing ponds) or water (Athabasca again) either at no cost or for free. When Nestle is allowed to take water for a few bucks per million litres you have a clear example of a commons, groundwater, being pillaged for private gain.
Monbiot envisions the commons in the British context. Our own is significantly different and more easily valued on a market basis but very rarely on a political basis. It's just another way in which the current and former governments fail to represent the public interest.
I used the image of the Boston Common to represent the North American concept of the Commons, Mound. There is an entirely different tradition here which, for instance, former Ontario premier Mike Harris disegarded when he sold Highway 407 -- a toll highway which skirts Toronto -- to private interests in order to reduce his government's deficit.
Another commons given away is the "airways" used by radio and TV networks. As a commons we should all have a say in how they are used.
Exactly, Toby. With cable boxes and satellite dishes, we pay a fee to use them.
@Mound...
I find Monbiot's prescription a bit ethereal but it must be recognized that landholdings in Britain have a significant component of hereditary grant by monarchs to nobles over the centuries for loyal service,
little has changed.
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/bids-pour-in-for-western-forest-products-island-1-861-hectares-in-34-titles-1.3360
TB
as long as municipalities can plow under commons to erect housing which bring in the increasing property taxes based on values there will always be a fight with development.
An interesting link, TB. Thanks.
At the heart of that debate, zoombats, are two competing definitions of "wealth."
Post a Comment