Investigating Commons Approaches: First, the Plunder

As we think about how to organize an After Capitalism society, a commons approach seems a vitally important place to start. It’s fair to assume that there will be opposition to the idea of a commons approach. In fact, the author reminds us early on of Margaret Thatcher’s famous quip: “There is no such thing as society … there are only individuals and families.” Yes, we have a lot to do and a long way to go. A great place to start in terms of thinking about a commons approach to help organize society (yes, we’ll assume society is a good thing) is Guy Standing’s Plunder of the Commons: A Manifesto for Sharing Public Wealth. Reader of Imagining After Capitalism will recognize his name, as I included his most useful concept of the Precariat.

The Plunder of the Commons is a manifesto. It is not attempting to be balanced account. He is a supporter of a common approach. Alas, he catalogs a several centuries war against the commons, with privatization at the center, along enclosure, colonization, neglect, and encroachment.

Okay what do we mean by commons? Standing refers to the commons as all our shared natural resources – including the land, the forests, the moors and parks, the water, the minerals, the air – and all the social, civic and cultural institutions that our ancestors have bequeathed to us, and that we may have helped to maintain or improve.

Pop quiz: what’s been around longer, private property or the commons? Correct, the commons! Standing observes that the idea that ownership conferred exclusive rights to use and dispose of property only took shape in the seventeenth century. So, when you hear the “impracticality” of a commons approach, history is on its side.  

Another interesting bit of support. Think of how Britain and Norway managed their commons of North Seat Oil. Thatcher privatized it and “splurged the oil taxation revenue on income tax cuts and current spending.” Norway’s government retained its stake and invested the revenues and now has a big healthy sovereign wealth fund providing benefits for the citizenry.

As you may have discerned, Standing is British and mostly uses examples from there. He observed that between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries, the British Parliament passed over 5,000 enclosure Acts – in effect making common properties into private properties. As a result, the commons only make up a tiny 5% cent of land in Britain today.

One nugget struck a particular chord with me. He talks about the “the right to roam.” In Britain the ‘roaming range’ — the area within which children are permitted to play unsupervised – has shrunk by more than 90% per cent, due to traffic growth, pressures of school, parental fears for children’s safety, and a decline in green spaces. Not only is this a reduction in quality of life, we have childhood obesity rates soaring.

If we think broadly about a commons approach, it can be any setting where commoning – participative , communal activity – takes place. It’s about a collaborative way of living, suggesting shared access by rough equals. Keep in mind, we are looking at the concept of commons as we explore ways to address the massive and growing inequality we are experiencing today!

As you might suspect, sustaining a commons is not easy stuff. There is a lot to be worked out:

• There should be well- defined boundaries.
• There should be ‘collective choice arrangements’ – that is, democratic governance.
• The commons should be monitored.
• There should be rules on infractions by commoners.
• There should be mechanisms for resolving conflicts.
• Higher-level administrators and managers must recognize and respect commoners’ rights.
• While local commons may be part of a national system, they should be allowed to adapt rules to local conditions and traditions, a version of the principle of subsidiarity.

There is of course lots more. He shares some examples. For instance, the multi -stakeholder , cooperative (MSC) model of governance and ownership — also referred to as social cooperatives — could be thought of as a ‘public-commons partnership.

This is not a how-go guide, but a call-to action. But the author does offer solutions along the way. For instance, he explores how a Commons Fund should be set up. It would be primarily sourced by levies on the commercial use or exploitation of the commons. The Fund should invest to generate and preserve ecologically sustainable commonwealth, and Common Dividends should be paid out equally to all commoners. The Commons Fund would be a variant of sovereign wealth funds that now exist in over sixty countries. The closest to what is proposed here are the Alaska Permanent Fund and the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global, better known as the Norwegian Oil Fund.

There is a relentlessness to this book. In aspect of aspect of society, the plunder continues. It is not pretty. It is not a fun read. But it is a necessary one. As we explore the possibilities for After Capitalism, this is a book we are sure to refer to, and I thank the author for this valuable contribution.  – Andy Hines