The commons refers to the collective heritage of humanity – the shared wealth of a community, to which every person has an equal interest and no one can own. The commons can be divided into three spheres. Natural Commons are resources necessary for our survival like soil, forests and oceans. Social Commons are functions necessary for social cohesion like health, education and community. Cultural Commons are knowledge assets necessary for self-actualization such as information, art and science. As our archaic institutions try to hold on to their old ways as long as possible it inevitably accelerates the conversion of anything it can into money, which generates enormous pressure to extend the commodification of the commonwealth. So long as we measure wealth in purely monetary terms we debase the commons and turn all facets of life into artificially scarce commodities.
Common goods are those which are both rival and non-excludable, these conditions combined are said to give rise to what Garrett Hardin termed “The Tragedy of the Commons“. His controversial theory assumes that different groups will purposely compete to exhaust resources so as to deny others access to the same resource. Certainly the tragedy of the commons plagues any imperialistic and stratified socio-economic system as we can see today with the vast plundering natural resources and subsequent failures for countries to agree upon environmental treaties. Yet as professor and Nobel laureate Eleanor Ostrom and others have shown, the failure of the commons is not inevitable in lateralized societies where communities self-organize and cooperate through the husbanding of resources. The primary challenge facing the World is not one of failed commons, rather it’s the tragedy of enclosures. That is, the legalization of private property and commodity exchange by the state and subsequent overuse of commonly managed resources by the market.
The history of the privatization of capital and natural resources is well known. Beginning in the 12th century in northern Europe, and intensifying during the 16th century, the emerging free market laid claim to what seemed to be an endless supply of natural resources existing in empty and limitless space. Enterprising merchants, bankers and politicians enclosed these “vacant” areas and turned them into legally titled property whilst displacing poor and natives peoples from their means of subsistence. The history of enclosures is a legacy of struggle and violence over claims to property, which continues today. Issues related to intellectual property law in particular are leading to what many are now calling the enclosure of the information commons.
The reclamation and recovery of a commons is a long-term undertaking. Today, common goods have all but faded from our modern frame of reference as our highly commercialized society is left grappling to fully appreciate their relevance. At the same time a dawning perception is bringing forth new ways of understanding resources, interrelationships, governing structures, values and standards. A new kind of commonwealth is needed to protect the assets of Earth, resolve our private and public debts, and create a global society of justice, sharing and sustainability for everyone.
Throughout history, community rules for many kinds of commons have been set up to prevent resource overuse while ensuring fair access. For the most part, these rules were customary and gained acceptance through practice. However as communities have been displaced over generations these obligations have been lost.
The movement towards a commons-based society requires the formation of commons trusts to protect the commons from claims of ownership by private individuals, businesses and government. A further consideration as proposed by Charles Eisenstein is a commons-backed currency, such that the value of money is tied to the production and preservation of common goods. Once commons trusts decide how much of each commons should be made available for use, we can issue money backed by it such that the health of the environment and wellbeing of society is the store of monetary value. For example, we might decide that the atmosphere can sustain total sulphur dioxide emissions of two million tons a year. We can then use these emissions as part of a range of indicators to value currency. Consequently access to credit will favour those who contribute the most towards society whilst minimizing their use of the commons. This type of economic system could be called “social capitalism“, as companies would be able to compete on top of the commons and the most profitable would be those who were using resources most effectively and contributing to the progression of society. A noteworthy effect of implementing such a system is that goods and services would reflect the real cost of production. Products which were produced most sustainably would be cheaper, whilst those which were more environmentally destructive would be expensive. This would also provide an economic incentive for repairing, reusing, and recycling more.
