Die Neue Zeit
11th August 2012, 20:05
Post-modernism has coughed up things like "multitude" and "the commons." The former was discredited by the popularization of "precarity," but now is "the commons" empty, too?
http://www.opendemocracy.net/mariya-ivancheva/debating-“-commons”-in-post-socialist-bulgaria
The concept of “the commons” – here defined as goods and services that are managed by and serve the interest of the community that produces them – has suddenly attracted the attention of European left-wing movements. Various theorists and scientists have revisited this concept, which culminated in the drafting of A European Charter of “the commons” earlier this year at the International University College in Turin, Italy. Italy has recently experienced what seems to be a successful process of reclaiming “the commons”.
[...]
Many ecological activists heralded these protests as a success. Yet on closer observation, can we say that this phenomenon spells good news for Bulgarian social movements? Is it evidence of a resurgence of the struggle for “the commons”, increasingly foregrounded in debates about crisis-born alternatives to neoliberal capitalism by the European left? Is it a sign that a sense of social (if not socialist) solidarity and community has been preserved despite the brutal privatization that has swept the region?
[...]
Firstly, the protests in Bulgaria show that if we are to take the concept of “the commons” on board for left-wing struggles, we need to determine in very practical terms how broad a definition of “the commons” we can operate with, and which are the basic elements of “the commons”. For the majority of people who grew up imbued with neoliberal ideology nurtured by anti-communist and anti-communal narratives – hegemonic public discourse in east-central Europe since 1989 – the idea of “the commons” does not make much sense. Many prefer an opt-in and opt-out strategy: they stand against the privatization of nature and for the privatization of industry and services; against the pollution of water and soil, but for the private property and “management” thereof; against the cutting of funds in the education sector, but for “efficiency” and individual survival by competition within the educational and job sector.
[...]
This reframing of “the commons” against the background of the rise of neo-nationalists also signals a deeper crisis of “the commons”.
Other than the term "environmental commons," I don't see much of a future for "the commons" as a theory or guide to action. Like "multitude," this post-modernist stuff is going out the window fairly quickly.
[What should be discussed on the left is economic republicanism as a polemic against social democracy.]
http://www.opendemocracy.net/mariya-ivancheva/debating-“-commons”-in-post-socialist-bulgaria
The concept of “the commons” – here defined as goods and services that are managed by and serve the interest of the community that produces them – has suddenly attracted the attention of European left-wing movements. Various theorists and scientists have revisited this concept, which culminated in the drafting of A European Charter of “the commons” earlier this year at the International University College in Turin, Italy. Italy has recently experienced what seems to be a successful process of reclaiming “the commons”.
[...]
Many ecological activists heralded these protests as a success. Yet on closer observation, can we say that this phenomenon spells good news for Bulgarian social movements? Is it evidence of a resurgence of the struggle for “the commons”, increasingly foregrounded in debates about crisis-born alternatives to neoliberal capitalism by the European left? Is it a sign that a sense of social (if not socialist) solidarity and community has been preserved despite the brutal privatization that has swept the region?
[...]
Firstly, the protests in Bulgaria show that if we are to take the concept of “the commons” on board for left-wing struggles, we need to determine in very practical terms how broad a definition of “the commons” we can operate with, and which are the basic elements of “the commons”. For the majority of people who grew up imbued with neoliberal ideology nurtured by anti-communist and anti-communal narratives – hegemonic public discourse in east-central Europe since 1989 – the idea of “the commons” does not make much sense. Many prefer an opt-in and opt-out strategy: they stand against the privatization of nature and for the privatization of industry and services; against the pollution of water and soil, but for the private property and “management” thereof; against the cutting of funds in the education sector, but for “efficiency” and individual survival by competition within the educational and job sector.
[...]
This reframing of “the commons” against the background of the rise of neo-nationalists also signals a deeper crisis of “the commons”.
Other than the term "environmental commons," I don't see much of a future for "the commons" as a theory or guide to action. Like "multitude," this post-modernist stuff is going out the window fairly quickly.
[What should be discussed on the left is economic republicanism as a polemic against social democracy.]