Participate in the elaboration of the European Charter of the commons!
Find here the Charter: add your comments, ideas, or proposals!
--------------------------------------------
Commons: A framework and kaleidoscope of social practices for another possible world
30. Januar 2012 — Silke Helfrich
GT Commons on the Thematic Social Forum 2012
(The following text has been produced by one of the 17 working groups of the Thematic Social Forum which took place between January 24 and January 29 in Porto Alegre/ Brazil. Commoners from Brazil, Germany, France, India, Argentina and Bolivia took place in redacting this as an „open document“, thus: it will be further developed. The version we publish here serves as in input for a more general and comprehensive document to be prepared for Rio+20 by the Thematic Social Forum. More on this process here. Translations into Spanish, French and Portuguese have been done already. The German version is waiting for volunteers )
Challenges of the current context: the dangerous conspiracy between state and market State and market, at least in its hegemonic shape, are closely linked and it is hard to differentiate their actions. Even those of us who believe that it is possible for a democratic state to guarantee the general well-being, we see ourselves confronted with states that have no shame in catering to the banking sector –the chief culprit for the recent economic crises– while cutting social expenditures. Both state and market share the same ideological commitment to progress and competition. Both are committed to a model of development and economic growth that destroys the planet and the richness of the commons. Both dismantle our culture and livelihoods in order to convert us into consumers of goods. This inevitably leads to such outrages as the Brazilian mining company VALE’s construction of the Belo Monte dam in the middle of the Amazon rainforest, which will have a devastating impact on the biodiversity and the indigenous people of the region.
This threat to what is common to us are achieved through diverse mechanisms:
Legal: through agreements on free trade and investment protections and intellectual property, and international bodies like the WTO and the WIPO;
Economic: through private appropriation of territories (landgrabbing);
Technological: through genetically modified organisms (GMOs), restrictive systems of access to culture (DRM),geoengineering, etc.
All these phenomena are part of a grand, still untold story of our time: the process of enclosure of the commons, which goes beyond the privatization because it involves expulsion, disenfranchisement and social fragmentation. Enclosures are expanding and intensifying, and, “when the last tree is cut, when the last river has been poisoned” they will go on with the enclosure of the fundamentals of life at a scale of nanotechnology.
Meanwhile, the same states and markets have prepared the trap of the “green capitalism,” which they will try to enforce through the Rio+20 conference. This will signal the next round of enclosure, commodification and financialization of nature.At the same time, states and corporations are conducting a war against the right to share by means of agreements like ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), proposed laws like SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (ProtectIP Act), direct attacks against citizen organizations like Wikileaks, regulations that impede the reuse and exchange of seeds, and more patents on traditional knowledge. This is the the moment we are living in
to read the whole article go here
--------------------------------------------
Watch the video from: CommonsDeutschland
a short introduction into the idea of the commons, as well as a critical review of the so called "tragedy of the commons"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=otmrkhEFSZM&feature=player_embedded
-------------------------------------------------
Abstract from the book: “Water Wars”
written by Vandana Shiva and published by South End Press (2002)
Chapter 4 - The World Bank, WTO and Corporate control over Water.
Giant water projects, in most cases, benefit the powerful and dispossess the weak. Even when such projects are publicly funded, their beneficiaries are mainly construction companies, industries, and commercial farmers. While privatization is generally couched in rhetoric about the disappearing role of the state, what we actually see is increased state intervention in water policy, subverting community control over water resources. Policies imposed by the World Bank, and trade liberalization rules crafted by the World Trade Organization (WTO), are creating a sweeping culture of corporate-states all over the world.
[…] Public-private partnerships in the water business are meant to replace water services as public service: First is the focus on commercial orientation through institutional reforms and restructuring. For example, a first step may be restructuring the water and sewage department on a profit center basis.
[…] Privatization arguments have been based largely on the poor performance of public sector utilities. Government employees are seen as excess staff, responsible for low productivity of public water agencies. The fact that poor public-sector performance is most often due to the utilities’ lack of accountability is hardly taken into account. As it turns, there is no indication that the private companies are any more accountable. In fact the opposite tend to be the case. While privatization does not have a track record of success, it does have a track record of risks and failures. Private companies often violate operation standards and engage in price gouging without [paying] much [attention] to the consequences.
-------------------------------------------------
Newsweek columnist Robert J. Samuelson
commenting on the many economic and social problems that American society now confronts, recently wrote:
"We face a choice between a society where people accept modest sacrifices for a common good or a more contentious society where group selfishly protect their own benefits."
On the same article: Daniel Callahan, an expert on bioethics, argues that solving the current crisis in our health care system rapidly rising costs and dwindling access requires replacing the current "ethic of individual rights" with an "ethic of the common good"
to read the whole article go to: www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/commongood.html
-----------------------------------------------------
An abstract (in Italian) from www.europeancommongoods.org
È possibile ricostruire un tessuto socio-economico basato sui valori dei Beni Comuni. Da dove cominciamo?
Da quattro passi chiari e comprensibili
LE QUATTRO TAPPE VERSO UNA SOCIETÀ DEI BENI COMUNI
1. Dichiarazione della salvaguardia dei Beni Comuni a livello macro e micro della società
2. Un Bene Comune non può essere scambiato al di fuori della comunità
3. I fondi pubblici sono destinati prioritariamente per la salvaguardia dei Beni Comuni
4. Forme di gestione cooperativa nella comunità hanno la priorità di finanziamento e di gestione dei Beni Comuni
I Beni Comuni sono il quadro di riferimento per la trasformazione sociale che proponiamo. Sono la concreta espressione dello sforzo di una comunità nell’investire nel proprio futuro, nello stato sociale e in una crescita equilibrata. Poiché sono il cardine dello spirito e dello sforzo della comunità, non possono essere venduti a qualunque condizione, ma possono essere valorizzati in modo da accrescere il valore per la comunità.
Per questo motivo sono una priorità di bilancio e sono affidati di preferenza a cooperative, imprese ad azionariato popolare o altre nuove forme simili.
to read more from this source go to: http://www.europeancommongoods.org/
--------------------------------------------------
From: www.controlacrisi.org
‘Forum: Comuni per i Beni Comuni’
Two articles tell us what has happened last weekend in Naple (Napoli).
Short abstracts (in Italian) below:
1. Beni comuni e partecipazione
Autore: Massimo Rossi
Tantissime persone hanno partecipato sabato a Napoli al Forum dei Comuni per i Beni Comuni. Amministratori locali, attivisti di movimenti sociali, protagonisti di lotte a difesa dei beni comuni e dei diritti lavoratori, giovani, militanti di forze politiche della sinistra, cittadine e cittadini. Tutte/i attivamente alla ricerca, dal basso, di una prospettiva politica in grado di prefigurare un’”al...ternativa”, nei contenuti e nelle pratiche, per uscire a sinistra dalla crisi del liberismo, della democrazia rappresentativa, della politica spettacolo.
Peccato che forse a causa di qualche ambiguità nella costruzione del programma, anche la stampa di sinistra, ne abbia enfatizzato prevalentemente le esternazioni più o meno significative di qualche personaggio.
Questa è la mia relazione al tavolo tematico su beni comuni e partecipazione al Forum di Napoli.
Quasi venti anni or sono, a Grottammare, l’avvio di un processo di partecipazione diretta dei cittadini alle scelte riguardanti l’uso delle risorse economiche e naturali e la gestione dei servizi pubblici, ci appariva l’unica strada per sottrarre quel territorio e quella comunità da un destino di saccheggio, mercificazione e privatizzazione. Per questo nel ’94 , con la vittoria elettorale di un movimento denominato “solidarietà e partecipazione”, che ancora oggi governa la città, prese il via quella che viene riconosciuta come una delle prime, più longeve e riuscite esperienze di democrazia partecipativa.
continua a:
www.controlacrisi.org/notizia/Politica/2012/1/30/19313-beni-comuni-e-partecipazione/?fb_ref=.TyXizSa0w1M.like&fb_source=timeline
2. A.A.A. politica cercasi
Autore: Adriana Pollice | Fonte: il manifesto
Sala gremita per il dibattito, posti in piedi ai tavoli tematici. E' stato un successo il forum dei "Beni comuni" che si è svolto ieri a Napoli.
«A sinistra ci siamo abituati a dire pochi ma buoni, però poi si vincono le amministrative, poi anche i referendum e allora, come al forum di Napoli 'Comuni per i beni comuni', dobbiamo abituarci a dire buoni e tantissimi». Norma Rangeri apre i lavori dell'appuntamento partenopeo che ieri ha riunito amministrazioni, associazioni, movimenti, cittadini e tutte le realtà del territorio intorno alle possibili declinazioni del benecomunismo. Tocca alla direttrice de il manifesto «perché il nostro giornale dà voce e forma al cambiamento a cominciare dal referendum sull'acqua, su cui abbiamo condotto una battaglia quando erano in pochi a crederci. E poi siamo stati noi a scovare il comma dell'articolo 25, nelle liberalizzazioni di Monti, che avrebbe reso impossibile convertire le Spa in società speciali di diritto pubblico per gestire i servizi idrici», a partire da Abc Napoli - Acqua bene comune. «Ci siamo battuti e abbiamo ottenuto il ritiro della misura».
La sala del teatro Politeama, il più grande di Napoli, è gremita già dalle 11, arrivano anche gli scettici, non si sottraggono al confronto. Nei corridoi i banchetti per le firme per far tornare la Fiom sui luoghi di lavoro ma anche per la petizione popolare per cambiare il Trattato economico europeo. Dalla direttrice del manifesto, due bacchettate: «Come spesso accade, manca una presenza femminile più ampia perché viene disconosciuta l'importanza del contributo delle donne al rinnovamento della politica italiana. Manca l'attenzione all'informazione. I giornali indipendenti, come Liberazione, hanno già cominciato a chiudere, quando resteranno le multinazionali delle news quale sarà la qualità dell'informazione? Anche noi potremmo a breve non esserci più. Vogliamo assistere al funerale o scongiurarlo in nome della stampa Bene comune?».
Continua a:
www.controlacrisi.org/notizia/Politica/2012/1/notizia/Politica/2012/1/29/19288-aaa-politica-cercasi/
Videos from the ‘Forum: Comuni per i Beni Comuni’ held on the past weekend in Naple (Napoli).
1.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFcU-E2PvsQ&feature=youtu.be
2.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrydl9uQvT0&feature=youtu.be
3.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQUJQnogbv8&feature=youtu.be
------------------------------------------
Abstract from the book:
“FROM ‘COMMON GOODS’ TO THE ‘COMMON GOOD OF HUMANITY”
written by Francois Houtart and published by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation (2011)
[...] Unbridled individualism was developed as an ethical necessity, together with the concept of the unlimited progress of humanity, living on an inexhaustible planet and capable of resolving its contradictions through science and technology.
[...] It is not possible to identify modernity with capitalism, but neither can one talk of modernity without including capitalism. This is the reason why it is imperative that we reconstruct a consistent, theoretical framework, benefiting from the contributions of various currents in human thought, including those of a philosophical nature, as well as the physical, biological and social sciences. It is important to situate each new initiative to create a new paradigm within the whole, thus giving coherence to what could seem a series of separate actions, without much connection with each other (empiricism). This is also valid for interna-tional politics.
[...] The foundations of the collective life of humanity on the planet are fourfold: the relationship with nature; the production of the basics for living (the economy); collective organization, social and political; and interpretation or the symbolic expression of reality. It is the fulfillment of a new paradigm with its four elements that we would call the achievement of the Common Good of Humanity, that is, as we have already said, the production and reproduction of life. It is an objective that has to be continually pursued, but which cannot be defined once and for all because historical circumstances change the context. However, the current crisis requires a radical re-thinking, one that goes to the roots of the situation (István Mészáros, 2008, 86) and this means a complete reorientation of the paradigm compared to capitalism.
[…]Summing it up, we can say that the paradigm of human development expressed by modernity is indefinite material and scientific progress, on an inexhaustible planet at the exclusive disposal of human beings, so that they can benefit, with increasing liberty, from goods and services. This way of life is based on the effectiveness of a competitive economy (a particularly masculine characteristic) and it is now being exhausted because of all its social and ecological contradictions; hence the need for a radical change to ensure the continuity of life on earth and of humanity in the long term.
The new paradigm proposes, as a fundamental option, a balanced social dynamic between individuals, genders and social groups in harmony with nature in order to promote life and ensure its reproduction. It is a question of ‘vivir bien’, achieving the ‘Common Good of Humanity’, which means, as a first step, respect for the wholeness of nature as the source of life (Mother Earth).
Its construction and applications in the fundamental elements of the collective life of humanity on the planet are processes: not just academic exercises, but something to be worked out in society, where thinking has an essential place, but so does practical experience, particularly with regard to social struggles. Each one of these corresponds to a failure in the achievement of the ‘Common Good of Humanity’ and a related search for solutions. As the destructive globalization of capitalism has exercised its supremacy in the economies, societies and cultures of the world – without however totally eliminating their specific characteristics – the reconstruction task belongs to us all, men and women, according to our social characteristics and historical experiences. No one should be excluded in this common effort to re-elaborate the necessary conditions for life.
[…] Modern civilization with its strong control over nature, its high degree of urbanization, has made human beings forget that, at the last resort, they depend totally on nature for their lives. Climate change reminds us of this reality, sometimes in a very brutal way. This means therefore seeing nature not as a planet to be exploited, nor as natural resources that can be reduced to the status of saleable commodities, but as the source of all life. As such, its capacity to regenerate itself physically and biologically has to be respected. This obviously entails a radical philosophical change. Any relationship with nature that is exclusively utilitarian must be questioned. Capitalism considers ecological damage as 'collateral' and inevitable – though perhaps to be reduced as far as possible; or, even worse, ecological damages are considered as ‘externalities’, since they are ignored in market calculations and consequently in the accumulation of capital.
Some authors go much further, and question the anthropocentric bias of these perspectives, proposing new concepts like 'the right of nature', which the Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff has defended in some of his writings.
[…]First, we must outlaw the private ownership of what are called ‘natural resources’: i.e. minerals, fossil energies and forests. These are the common heritage of humanity, and cannot be appropriated by individuals and corporations, as happens now in the capitalist market economy – in other words, by private interests that ignore externalities and aim at maximizing profits.
[…] The introduction of ecological costs of all human activities into economic calculations is also a necessity, making it possible to reduce these and to counter the utilitarian rationale that excludes "externalities": one of the reasons for the destructive nature of capitalism.
[…] However, total State control as a counter-weight to the total market is not a satisfactory solution, as past socialist experiences prove. There are many different forms of collective control, from cooperatives to citizens’ associations.
Thus what we need is a totally different definition of the economy. It would no longer be a matter of producing aggregate value for the benefit of the owners of the means of production or of finance capital, but rather a collective activity aimed at ensuring basic needs for the physical, cultural and spiritual lives of all human beings on the planet.
[…]Redefining the economy thus means a fundamental change. Privileging use value - which still involves the development of productive forces – and presupposes the adoption of the first fundamental element, that of respect for nature, like those to which we shall be coming shortly: generalized democracy, and interculturalism. This does not exclude exchanges necessary also to satisfying the new use values, but on condition that they do not create imbalances in local access to use value and that they include externalities in the process.
[…]Prioritizing use value over exchange value also means rediscovering the territorial as-pect. Globalization has made people forget the virtues of local proximity in favour of global interchanges, ignoring externalities and giving primacy to finance capital - the most globalized element of the economy because of its virtual character. Territorial space, as the site of economic activities but also of political responsibility and cultural exchanges, is the place to introduce another kind of rationale. It is not a matter of reducing the question to a microcosm, but rather to think in terms of multidimensionality, in which each dimension, from the local unit to the global sphere, has its function, without destroying the others. Hence the concept of food sovereignty and energy sovereignty, by which trade is subordinated to a higher principle is: the satisfaction of the requirements of the territory dimensions (Jean-Philippe Peemans, 2010). In the capitalist perspective, the law of value imposes priority for commercialization, and hence it gives precedence to the export of crops over the production of food for local consumption. The concept of 'food security' is not adequate, because it can be ensured by trade that is based on the destruction of local economies, on the over-specialization of certain areas of the world, and on globalized transportation that is a voracious consumer of energy and polluter of the environment.
In the same line of thinking, the move towards regionalization of economies on a world scale is a positive step towards delinking from the capitalist centre that transforms the rest of the world into peripheries (even if emerging economies). It is also a positive step in relation to both to trade and the monetary system, as it allows to redesign the globalizing model.
This brings us to practical measures. They are numerous, and we can give only a few examples here. On the negative side, the predominance of finance capital cannot be accepted, and for this reason tax havens of all kinds must be abolished, as well as bank secrecy – two powerful instruments the dominant class uses in the class struggle. It is also necessary to establish a tax on international financial flows (the 'Tobin tax') to reduce the power of finance capital. ‘Odious debts’ must be denounced, after due audits, as has been done in Ecuador. Speculation on food and energy cannot be permitted. As said before, a tax on the kilometers consumed by industrial or agricultural goods would make it possible to reduce the ecological costs of transport and the abuse of ‘comparative advantage’. Prolonging the ‘life expectancy’ of industrial products would allow saving raw materials and energy, and could diminish the artificial profits of capital resulting purely from the circulation of trade (Wim Dierckxsens, 2011).
From a positive viewpoint there are also many examples to be cited. The social economy is built on a logic that is quite different from that of capitalism. It is true that it is a marginal activity at present, compared with the immense concentration of oligopolistic capital, but it is possible to encourage it in various ways. The same goes for co-operatives and popular credit. They must be protected from being destroyed or absorbed by the dominant system. As for regional economic initiatives, they can be the means of a transformation out of economic logic, on the condition that they do not represent simply an adaptation of the system to new production techniques, thus serving as means to integrate national economies into a capitalist framework at a higher level. Restoring the common goods privatized by neo-liberalism is a fundamental step to be taken in public services like water, energy, transport, communications, health, education and culture. This does not necessarily mean the State taking them over but rather setting up many different forms of public and citizen control over their production and distribution.
Redefining the ‘Common Good of Humanity’ in terms of a new definition of the economy is thus a necessary task to be undertaken, confronted as we are by the destruction of our common heritage as a result of forgetting the collective dimension of production for life-needs, and by the promotion of exclusive individualism.
Description available in English
Descrizione disponibile in Italiano
Need a new account?
Français
Română
Facebook
Twitter
Reddito, Beni Comuni, Democrazia / ...
10 02 2012
Teatro Valle Occupato
