Triumph of the Commons

From P2P Foundation
Revision as of 14:35, 12 January 2012 by Yaco (talk | contribs) (→‎Excerpts)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

* Book: Triumph of the Commons: Fifty-Five Theses on the Future. Writer: Leland Maschmeyer Editor: Tonice Sgrignoli, Brian Collins. Publ. Collins, 2011

URL = http://triumphofcommons.com/


Description

"Triumph of the Commons is a collaborative book from fifty-five artists. It resurrects a disparaged, yet newly valuable, cultural narrative. Presented as fifty-five theses, this narrative challenges notions of prosperity: what it means and how to achieve it. Readers will find that each thesis offers practical implications for a range of concerns emerging in the 21st century."


Excerpts

01

Some people see the world as a battleground, while others see it as a commons.

02

Those who see the world as a battleground vanquish duality. The gun-slinging rancher Nick Grindel in The Western Code (1932) embodies that mentality: “This town ain’t big enough for the both of us.”

03

Those who see the world as a commons value duality. Consider Woody Guthrie: “This land is your land. This land is my land.”

04

Those who see the world as a battleground “engage” people as one engages the enemy: “I demolished his argument.” “Fire away.” “He brought out the big guns.” “You can't change his mind. He's entrenched.” “She shot me down.”

05

Those who see the world as a commons “involve” people as one involves a peer in the co­creation of play. “What is genius‚" Goethe asks‚ “but the faculty of seizing and turning to account anything that strikes us ... every one of my writings has been furnished to me by a thousand different persons‚ a thousand different things.”

06

The relationship of play opens one to surprise from others so that the activity of play can continue ad infinitum.

07

Play is‚ therefore‚ the collaborative creation of new relations‚ new possibilities‚ and new realities. Philosopher Martin Buber: “Play is

08

If the objective of play is to continue play‚

09

Those who see the world as a battleground strive to suppress surprise from others. “Loose canons” are dangerous.

10

Those who see the world as a battleground revel in what they’ve made impossible for others. Those who see the world as a commons revel in what they have made possible with others.

11

While those on the battleground strive to produce their autonomy from others‚ those in the commons provide others with the autonomy to produce. Lawrence Lessig: “If the Internet teaches us anything‚ it is that great value comes from leaving core resources in a commons‚ where they're free for people to build upon as they see fit.”

12

As such‚ the two worldviews–battleground versus commons–have differing views

13

To those who see the world as a battleground‚ the purpose of property is to display the rewards won in past confrontations. To the victor go the spoils. Only losers come home empty-handed. “The rich man glories in his riches‚” observed Adam Smith‚ the great philosopher of competition‚ “because he feels that they naturally draw upon him the attention of the world‚ and that mankind are disposed to go along with him... The poor man‚ on the contrary‚ is ashamed of his poverty. He feels that it ... places him out of the sight of mankind.”

14

This is the essence of profit. As in battle‚ as

15

People who see the world as a commons make gifts of property because they know that the greater the number of people who can play, the greater the number of people with whom they can play. People who see the world as a commons practice what is called a “gift economy.” Thus property is not a show but a means of enhancing relationships and expanding play. In a gift economy, says writer Howard Rheingold,

16

The expansion and extension of play is, then, the essence of wealth. John Ruskin pointed this out more than a hundred years ago in discussing the etymology of value: “Valor, from valere, to be well or strong; –strong, life (if a man), or valiant; strong, for life (if a thing), or valuable. To be ‘valuable,’ therefore, is to ‘avail toward life.’ ... For wealth, instead of depending merely on a ‘have,’ is thus seen to depend on a ‘can.’ ... And what we reasoned of only as accumulation of material, is seen to demand also accumulation of capacity.... Wealth is, therefore, ‘The Possession of the Valuable by the valiant.’”

17

Although it is the battleground that produces profit, it is the commons that produces wealth.

18

Therefore, those who see the world as a commons see the world and the people in it as source; as that which gives forth. In giving forth, a source is profuse in its self-initiated production. One does not engage a source to harness it to one’s personal agenda, but to involve it in the genesis of one’s own future.

19

Those who see a battleground see others as mere resource. A resource is anything converted from its original form into that which is useful for perpetuating someone”s past. To see others as a resource is, therefore, to expect them to surrender to your continued past.

20

Those who see the world as a battleground establish hierarchies: pyramids that declare a past enshrined and all futures bound to it. To do this, they confer rank. Rank demands that people acknowledge that another is more powerful, and it compels them to withdraw all opposition to that rank. This is the cessation of a war.


Introduction

Stephen Heller:

"All the world is a commons and all its inhabitants are you and me. That sentiment echoes the utopian dreams of many great and not-so-great thinkers and doers. The concept of universal sharing has been the underpinning of successful and flawed societies alike. But such societies are not all alike: Modern nations, primitive tribes, cult groups all have attempted some form of commons – of sharing resources in various ways. Too many utopian dreams have become dystopian nightmares, perhaps because unless the commons is fervently supported equally by all citizens, regardless of rank or status, it is too easy to devolve into a dictatorship of the few.

I admire the 55 theses that are herein presented. Idealistic as they may seem, each proposes a practical opportunity to unite the increasingly divided segments of our society. Number 3 strikes the most harmonic chord: "This land is your land. This land is my land." During a time of catastrophic strife, Woody Guthrie wrote an anthem that summed up the ultimate desire. America belongs to everyone who resides here. There is "you" and "me" – and we are different – but America: "this land is made for you and me."

With Guthrie's words as an entry point, the 55 Theses are suggestive truths and viable proposals of sorts, devised to keep us thinking about how to shore up our divisions. That designers were asked to interpret these ideas, aids all of us in understanding and concretizing by making visual, indeed universal, the concepts. Yet these are not the easiest concepts to visualize. Sometimes words better convey the idea. But what is clear from this mash–up of words and image is the underlying notion that only through collaboration can the commons work. Combining word and image, image and word is a symbol of two (and more) entities joining together for a common goal – a commons that might work for the common good." (http://triumphofcommons.com/about.php)