stroud commons

via michel bauwens tweet [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/1775824235186868617?s=20]:

I have neither met them nor visited them, but the following shows me that in my opinion, the Stroud Commons are on the right track. The key to the commons is the creation of new institutions for livelihood provisioning: https://lowimpact.org/posts/what-makes-the-commons-movement-different-a-its-much-more-difficult-to-co-opt… (it is neither about utopia nor about ‘kicking the Man’) “This article is exploratory – we’re having ongoing discussions about commons models in Stroud and elsewhere. If you have any knowledge of the topics covered below, we’d love to hear from you. The kinds of questions we’re often asked are, for example, ‘What’s different about the commons movement? What are you bringing to the party that we don’t have already? Why should I give it my time when there are so many other things I could be doing? How will the commons help build a powerful movement? If you’re successful, won’t the state just close you down? How can we work together?’ When the (new) commons movement is providing secure tenancies in community-owned housing; affordable, sustainable utilities; reliable and secure ways for people to invest in their local community, with a reasonable return; ways for small businesses to save money; and jobs, then we shouldn’t have to expend very much energy on persuading people to join. We already have a waiting list for potential housing commons tenants. But right now, we need to attract activists / volunteers in Stroud and other towns, to build commons institutions, promote, network, research, develop websites, start groups in their towns, and brainstorm.”

these are same thing.. both coercive.. so to me.. huge red flag we’re doing it/life/common\ing wrong

invited vs invented et al

my notes from article

Existing co-operative models aren’t challenging the status quo..nothing that currently exists is going to do it..core of new will be commons based on Ostrom 8..t ..But I think we can simplify them by boiling them down to three:

ostrom 8 as still not challenging status quo

  1. Resources / assets are not owned privately, but it’s not a free-for-all either. There are boundaries and agreements so that all users (commoners) know exactly what’s expected of them, and what they can expect to get from the commons, whether it’s housing, energy, food, water, social care, or anything else.
  2. Commoners make and monitor the agreements themselves – they’re not imposed from above.
  3. The commons is a movement – each local commons fits into a larger commons, and so on, up to the global scale.

1\ any form of m\a\p.. perpetuates same song (status quo)

2\ if monitoring then imposing..

The *first negates Hardin’s ‘Tragedy of the Commons’. The second shows that this is **separate from the state. The ***third makes the ambition clear. The rest is detail.

*doesn’t negate it.. perpetuates it.. tragedy of the non common.. myth of tragedy and lord.. et al

**not separate.. not diff.. if any form of m\a\p.. aka: any form of monitoring

***ambition is great.. just too many cancerous distractions

We’re now bringing new tools.. t for:

not new.. still perpetuating status quo..

there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it

legit freedom (legit commoning) will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of m\a\p

  • obtaining *infrastructure without debt
  • *trade without money
  • robust, multi-layered asset locks
  • *resilience against sale, co-option or cancellation
  • community ownership
  • democratic ****decision-making
  • federation

*infra we need: as infra

**need to let go of the idea of trade ness.. marsh exchange law.. graeber exchange law.. et al

***need to try gershenfeld something else law.. rather than all the re ness

****decision making is unmooring us law.. need to try curiosity over decision making

The whole range of existing co-operative institutions will also be part of it. We’re not looking to abandon co-ops. I’d choose a co-op or a mutual over a corporation every time (and I do), but the co-op movement can’t be considered revolutionary any more – at least not on its own. It’s a palliative (which isn’t a bad thing) – as is state ownership. And seizing power by force is a fading pipe-dream (as well as a bad thing).

But we absolutely have to work together. There aren’t enough of us not to. It’s not about trying to get a bigger slice of the pie for one section of society. It’s about baking a new pie.

We’re going to offer everything we learn to other towns. We’re pioneers, but almost everyone responds well to the concept of the commons. Good things are happening, with good people involved. You should join us – become a member. Right now, members can be:

  1. investors
  2. volunteers / activists

and soon:

  1. customers / tenants – there are waiting lists
  2. employees / stewards – ditto

oi

________

later added stroud commons site via dil green twitter exchange

________

________

________

________

________

_________

________