corona & commons
corona and the commons
article in progress via michel et al
[adding same day/focus as to (virus) leap]
@Commonify @davidbollier @GuerrillaTrans @cognitivepolicy @PluralEcon @gwoe this is a very short preliminary intervention, (we are writing a collective article this week): https://t.co/6gwC9D70ym
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/mbauwens/status/1242832104460877824
Dear all, I had been reviewing, before the Corona outbreak, and with the help of Jose Ramos, the lead editor of a upcoming book about cosmo-local production, the literature on historical rythms and cycles, to set the stage for the current ‘chaotic transition’ and ‘what comes next’.
In short, I have come to two important conclusions:
1) society moves from relative stable stages, through chaotic transitions, which are real mutations both in human consciousness and in socio-economic structures
2) this change is non-linear and moves through internal or external shocks.
common\ing et al
Corona is not going to be sufficient for a full transition, but it will be a Great Accelerator, which has already changed so much in such a short time. I am not predicting that the results will be uniformly positive (accelerating the green/p2p/commons transition), or negative (naomi klein’s shock doctrine).
Nevertheless some preliminary conclusions:
1) the market plays almost no role in finding solutions in such crisis moments..t
or you could say.. plays major role – in offering ie: ubi as temp placebo.. (people thinking they have money when really just getting whatever they need)
2) the nation-states are weak and the leaders have made mistakes, but it turns out to be to be an absolutately indispensible institution to avoid chaotic reactions from a fragmented social field, AND to discipline the market so that everyone is not put in even graver danger.
yeah.. i don’t think so..
perhaps perfect time to try a different infra/org
(lists 3 others.. 5 in total)
This regime, which is now still dominant and necessary, can order around market players, as they are now doing through new legislation that both saves and coerces/mobilizes market players; but most of all, it needs to work with, and help mobilize, the collective intelligence of trans-local and trans-national expertise which is strongly needs to be more effective itself. This proces towards ‘partner state’ practices and public-commons protocols will not be automatic, and will be an alternative to a coercive and authoritarian state-centric model, which could be one of the negative outcomes of this crisis.
not about expertise/collective-intelligence.. about listening to all the voices.. we need all of us
So what is the role of the commons movement ?
1) One is to show and demonstrate what we can do, as we have already done through the multitude of open source efforts to market and state failures as well as mutual aid self-organizing
i don’t think we’ve yet (anywhere) shown what we can do.. 1\ because it has to be all of us to work 2\ because no one seems to be able to practice no-strings ness.. commoning has to be unconditional or it’s tragedy/non-commoning
2) Use the opportunity of this pedagogical catastrophe to strive for structural adaptations and reforms..t
The Coronavirus crisis is also a non-linear opportunity for longer-term agenda setting to promote the necessary deep reforms and transformations that need to take place so humanity can take care of its needs within the planetary boundaries and in recognition of its interdependency with other life forms.
Corona is a serious crisis, but the climate is a much more serious one.. t
mufleh humanity law: we have seen advances in every aspect of our lives except our humanity– Luma Mufleh
La redécouverte des « communs » : une alternative à la marchandisation ? – ritimo https://t.co/d4HkyECa0A (tres pertinent a mon avis dans le contexte de la crise du coronavirus)
The rediscovery of the “commons”: an alternative to commodification? – ritimo (very relevant in my opinion in the context of the coronavirus crisis)
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/mbauwens/status/1243198702409396231
How do “the commons” indicate a pathway carrying concrete alternatives? We asked Michel Bauwens, researcher, entrepreneur and writer who specializes in this new approach.
We generally define the commons by three criteria which must be present at the same time to have “real” commons:
Firstly, it is a shared resource.. second, carried by a community or a group of partners (stakeholders), therefore neither by the State, nor by a single company for example.. third, rules and standards must be produced by this community. So it’s always a human choice, in English we say: “there are no commons without commoning”.
Peer-to-peer ..where coordination is done, neither by “orders” nor by prices, but by signals, much like social insects and their communication by “pheromones”.. one of the possibilities of these “peer-to-peer” networks is obviously to create commons.
The pandemic as political trial: the case for a global commons | ROAR Magazine
(excellent piece, strongly recommended)
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/mbauwens/status/1244567361153306625
Is the public service indissolubly linked to state sovereignty? This question deserves particularly careful consideration because it is one of the central arguments deployed by the proponents of state sovereignty.
Let us begin by examining the very nature of state sovereignty. Etymologically, sovereignty means “superiority” (from the Latin superanus), but superiority in regard to what? In brief, it is superiority in regard to any laws or obligations that threaten to limit the power of the state, both in its relation to other states and in relation to its own citizens. The sovereign state places itself above any commitments or obligations, which it is then free to constrict or revoke as it pleases. But as a public figure, the state can only act through its representatives, who are all supposed to embody the continuity of the state over and above the daily exercise of their specific governmental functions.
The superiority of the state therefore effectively means the superiority of its representatives over the laws or obligations that impinge upon them.
“One and Indivisible Republic” — an expression that, once again, references the sacrosanct principle of state sovereignty. Ultimately, expressions such as these are little more than alibis that allow state representatives to exempt themselves from any obligation that might legitimate citizen control over the state.
sovereignty et al
It is important to keep this last point in mind, for it is crucial in terms of understanding the public character of the so-called “public” service. The precise meaning of the word “public” demands our full attention here, because it is too rarely recognized that the concept of “public” is absolutely irreducible to the “state.” The term “publicum” designates not merely the state administration, but the entire community as constituted by all citizens: public services are not state services, in the sense that the state can dispense these services as it pleases, nor are they merely an extension of the state: they are public in the sense that they exist “in the service of the public.” It is in this sense that they constitute a positive obligation of the state toward its citizens.
Public services, in other words, are owed by the state — and its governors — to the governed. They are nothing like a favor that the state generously extends toward the governed, despite the negative connotations years of liberal polemics have imposed upon the phrase “the welfare state.” .. The public service is a mechanism by which the governors become the servants of the governed.
This is why the public service is a principle of social solidarity, one which is imposed on all, and not a principle of sovereignty, inasmuch as the latter is incompatible with the very idea of public responsibility.
This conception of the public service has largely been suppressed by the fiction of state sovereignty
Two relations must therefore be carefully separated here: the citizenry’s attachment to the public service, and healthcare in particular, in no way suggests adherence to public authority or public power in its various forms, but rather suggests an attachment to services whose essential function is to meet the public’s need. Far from disclosing an underlying identification with the nation, this attachment gestures toward a sense of a universal that crosses borders, and accordingly renders us sensitive to the trials our “pandemic co-citizens” are enduring, whether they are Italian, Spanish, or live beyond European borders.
there are plenty of reasons to think that the drastic economic measures currently in place will eventually share the same fate as those enacted during the 2008 economic crisis: we will likely see a concerted effort to “return to normal” — i.e., return to our otherwise uninterrupted destruction of the planet amidst increasingly conditions of social inequality. And we fear the enormous stimulus packages designed to “save the economy” will once again be borne on the backs of the lowest-paid workers and taxpayers.
pierre’s book: https://www.amazon.com/Common-Revolution-Century-Pierre-Dardot/dp/1350021210 – get from prospector when library opens
reading intro on academia edu (all i can find now) – common on rev in 21
Two conclusions are fast dawning on millions of people. First, the importance of public services as common institutions capable of facilitating vital human solidarity. And secondly, the most urgent political task now confronting humanity is the necessity of instituting the global commons. Because the major risks to humanity are now resolutely global in character, mutual aid and solidarity must also be global, politics must be coordinated, infrastructure and knowledge must be shared, and cooperation must become the absolute rule.
Health, climate, economics, education and culture can no longer be *considered private or state property: they all must be conceptualized as global commons, and they must be politically instituted as such..t
ie: cure ios city
One thing above all is now certain: salvation will not come from above. Only insurrections, uprisings and transnational coalitions of citizens can impose the common on states and on capital.
michel fb post:
somebody asked me what is the strategy for achieving a commons-centric society, a quick reply:
I don’t think there is a magic wand but to continue what we are doing i.e.
1) step one: immaterial cooperation around knowledge, software and design
2) redistributive urban commons wherever possible (shared mobility, housing, etc..)
3) productive cosmo-locatization as we are already doing with organic food, energy coops and multifactories .. we are restricted by capitalization and the non-recognition of generative work; which leads to
4) political mobilization for pro-commons policies, in the form of public -commons protocols and partner state developments, which demands the creation of assemblies and chambers of the commons, etc…, leading to
5) creation of warm current-sees and circular finance protocols to fund the commons economy; using new post-corporate vehicles and shared accounting/logistical tools to represent the new value streams
i hope.. as that’s what many are focusing on..
but perhaps.. 2\ wherever possible 4\ policies/assemblies-chambers-of-commerce 5\ current-sees, circular finance.. et al.. are part of tragedy of the non common
let’s do this first: free art-ists.
how to get back/to common\ing (aka:undisturbed ecosystem)
Post-Corona: The time for the ‘civic commons’ is now – Reimagining the Civic Commons – Medium https://t.co/wPoTmyYzc4
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/mbauwens/status/1266689581673598977
New cities are joining Reimagining the Civic Commons. We couldn’t think of a better time for them to do so.. Lexington, Macon, Miami, Minneapolis and San José will join Reimagining the Civic Commons, forging new ways to design, manage and operate public spaces for the benefit of their communities.
past ie’s: akron, chicago, detroit, memphis, philadelphia..
The expansion into five new cities presents more possibilities for public spaces that support authentic neighborhood participation, and for city leaders to nurture more support and investment in civic assets, leading to a more engaged and vibrant community. The opportunities to grow community leaders’ and advocates’ capacity to innovate in public space that deliver beneficial outcomes for everyone feel endless.
endless if we also re\imagine everyone as leaders or sans leaders
city sketch up ness et al