Viable Approaches to the Tragedy of the Commons in the 21st Century

[Masha]

Is a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as a process leading to socialism (classless, stateless, necessarily global society), a viable solution to the tragedy of the commons (which is manifesting today in issues like intellectual property, environmental degradation, income inequality, the outsourcing of individual authority to specialists, etc.), or are there other conceivably sufficient approaches to, at the very least maintaining, if not increasing, the possibility for individual human dignity and freedom (i.e., protecting the space in our lives, like our friendships, that are not yet subject to commodification), as well as for at the very least managing the ultimate collapse of the commons as it empirically manifests today -- all while avoiding a Feudal-Fascist (FF) new age?

[Ricemilk]

I don't buy that the tragedy of the commons is a real thing in the first place, much less an explanation for the problems named above. It seems a whole lot more like an unsupported thought experiment by people who were themselves hostile to communism, in bad faith.

[Masha]

I don't buy that the tragedy of the commons is a real thing in the first place, much less an explanation for the problems named above. It seems a whole lot more like an unsupported thought experiment by people who were themselves hostile to communism, in bad faith.

Ah -- maybe.

I heard Zizek talking about how communism is essentially "a problem", which I interpreted as "it exists as a possible or perhaps necessary way to address a problem".

The essential problem of communism is the problem of the commons, as far as I can tell. that is, the commodification of first our economic situation, and then, now in late-stage-capitalism, the commodification of our relationships (online dating, ideology of ideal relationship being a smoothly running business, etc.) the biosphere, etc.

By "tragedy of the commons", I don't mean that an idea is causing these phenomena, but that these phenomena are all related in that they are biproducts of the commodification process, which I have -- apparently misleadingly (and admittedly ignorant of the history of that term) -- categorized as "the tragedy of the commons".

We can either say that I was radicalizing it as a sort of "counter-reification"... or that my language could have been more precise ;)

[Masha]

I didn't really mean "tragedy of the common" in the usual sense. I should have used a less historically embedded term. Perhaps I could avoid the issue by being more abstract and saying "the aspects capitalism that play important roles in causing X,Y, Z critically harmful thing", so I don't accidentally direct it towards a traditional dialogue of possible resolution.

By "collapse of commons" I could also say "the universalizing nature of the market" or "totally market-oriented identity". I am trying to tie "the collapse" (i.e., "the crisis") into the acting out of Machiavellian "human nature" (universalized by Hobbes and democratized by Locke) over the last half-millenia.

[ckaihatsu]

You may want to rephrase your question, then, for the sake of clarity.

[Aslan]

''The tragedy of the commons is a term, probably coined originally by William Forster Lloyd and later used by Garrett Hardin, to denote a situation where individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource. The concept was based upon an essay written in 1833 by Lloyd, the Victorian economist, on the effects of unregulated grazing on common land and made widely-known by an article written by Hardin in 1968. "Commons" in this sense has come to mean such resources as atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, an office refrigerator, energy or any other shared resource which is not formally regulated, not common land in its agricultural sense.''

It seems superficially align criticize Marxism in a sense but this William Forster Lloyd seems to be the cliche bourgeois economist. And the fact that he was in the royal society doesn't help. the fact that ''He is best known today for one of his 1833 lectures on population control which have influenced writers in modern economic theory'' makes me think that he is bullshit. And his lectures seem to hint at Malthusian theory. This Individual argument is used all the time by objectivists and other students of the school of economics-woo .

Individuals act on their ''own'' interests because of greed. This greed pushes the gears of the capitalist machine and allows us to do heinous things that normally wouldn't acceptable. But the capitalist system encourages. But the problem with this line of thinking is that people tend to represent the interests of a collection of individuals through peer pressure, fashion, family and so on. So no, in socialism people set aside their own interest (what they don't know that this plays right into the hands of the upper class). And organize into revolutionary collectives, thereby placing the masses of proletarians and class traitors into power.

[Rafiq]

The tragedy of the commons is very real, but let's be simple: the commons are the dumping ground of an active, lively and dynamic capitalist society, the spiritual substance of society is not in the commons, but pertains to relationships of private property.

Even aside from that it is a useful concept. Humans are not 'naturally' selfish, but they are not 'naturally' capable of acting in a way that is in consideration of the holistic, greater good without some formal means of regulation - this is beyond the proximity of their lives. The means by which this would be regulated is a kind of public pseudo-propaganda - i.e. not necessarily 'propaganda' in the traditional sense of the word, but mass campaigns, a new Communist morality, social pressure, etc.

The 'decline of violence' per se in developed countries is PURELY owed to the increased socialization of labor and the exposure of particular sections of society to the standards of society as a whole.

[Masha]

The tragedy of the commons is very real, but let's be simple: the commons are the dumping ground of an active, lively and dynamic capitalist society, the spiritual substance of society is not in the commons, but pertains to relationships of private property.

Even aside from that it is a useful concept. Humans are not 'naturally' selfish, but they are not 'naturally' capable of acting in a way that is in consideration of the holistic, greater good without some formal means of regulation - this is beyond the proximity of their lives. The means by which this would be regulated is a kind of public pseudo-propaganda - i.e. not necessarily 'propaganda' in the traditional sense of the word, but mass campaigns, a new Communist morality, social pressure, etc.

The 'decline of violence' per se in developed countries is PURELY owed to the increased socialization of labor and the exposure of particular sections of society to the standards of society as a whole.

Very interesting -- what do you mean "spiritual substance" though? Kind of like "what's really essential" or "the most refined component of Marxism"; cell is to biology as the relationships of private property are to Marxism?

I also like the idea of wholesome propaganda! I bet the haute bourgeoise think what we have now is pretty wholesome too, so hopefully there is still a clear destinction outside of ideology.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Is a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as a process leading to socialism (classless, stateless, necessarily global society), a viable solution to the tragedy of the commons (which is manifesting today in issues like intellectual property, environmental degradation, income inequality, the outsourcing of individual authority to specialists, etc.), or are there other conceivably sufficient approaches to, at the very least maintaining, if not increasing, the possibility for individual human dignity and freedom (i.e., protecting the space in our lives, like our friendships, that are not yet subject to commodification), as well as for at the very least managing the ultimate collapse of the commons as it empirically manifests today -- all while avoiding a Feudal-Fascist (FF) new age?


Ah -- maybe.

I heard Zizek talking about how communism is essentially "a problem", which I interpreted as "it exists as a possible or perhaps necessary way to address a problem".

The essential problem of communism is the problem of the commons, as far as I can tell. that is, the commodification of first our economic situation, and then, now in late-stage-capitalism, the commodification of our relationships (online dating, ideology of ideal relationship being a smoothly running business, etc.) the biosphere, etc.

By "tragedy of the commons", I don't mean that an idea is causing these phenomena, but that these phenomena are all related in that they are biproducts of the commodification process, which I have -- apparently misleadingly (and admittedly ignorant of the history of that term) -- categorized as "the tragedy of the commons".

We can either say that I was radicalizing it as a sort of "counter-reification"... or that my language could have been more precise ;)

Marx called this phenomenon the "cash nexus"; the point where every social relationship is mediated by monetary exchange. Of course, in socialism there will be no cash nexus (as there will be no exchange), and in the transitional period the cash nexus will weaken to the extent that the law of planning has supplanted the law of value as the regulator of productive activity. But I think it's wrong to conceive of this as conservative, preserving relations that have yet to be brought under the cash nexus. It will be transformative - society will move beyond capitalism, not retreat. The old social relations, too, had their problems; while they may not have been based on monetary exchange they were often problematic to the people involved, particularly to the more vulnerable groups. So socialism will not reinstate the old pre-capitalist family out of some sentimentality (which is a good thing as the old family, like the capitalist family, was hell to women, gay people etc.), but move beyond to the collective institutions of socialist society.

[Emmett Till]

Marx called this phenomenon the "cash nexus"; the point where every social relationship is mediated by monetary exchange. Of course, in socialism there will be no cash nexus (as there will be no exchange), and in the transitional period the cash nexus will weaken to the extent that the law of planning has supplanted the law of value as the regulator of productive activity. But I think it's wrong to conceive of this as conservative, preserving relations that have yet to be brought under the cash nexus. It will be transformative - society will move beyond capitalism, not retreat. The old social relations, too, had their problems; while they may not have been based on monetary exchange they were often problematic to the people involved, particularly to the more vulnerable groups. So socialism will not reinstate the old pre-capitalist family out of some sentimentality (which is a good thing as the old family, like the capitalist family, was hell to women, gay people etc.), but move beyond to the collective institutions of socialist society.

Well, yeah. Capitalism was a huge improvement over feudalism and chattel slavery.

"The commons" originally meant the common holding of the land by agricultural communities, like the "mir" in Russia which Marx at the end of his life wrongly thought might be a basis for a direct transition to socialism in Russia. (Plekhanov politely disposed of such notions thoroughly while avoiding direct polemics vs. Marx, and Lenin's first major work whose name I am forgetting right now dotted the i's and crossed the t's). Which persisted in parts of Germany right into the lifetimes of Marx and Engels.

In fact, this was usually just a substratum of feudalism and serfdom, especially in Russia where the "mir" was the vehicle for Tsarist tax collection and the elected "mir" elders were usually the basis of Tsarist authority in the villages.

Mythification of the wonderful socialistic properties of the "mir" was one of the bases of the false Stalinist belief that the peasantry would be delighted with collectivisation as long as evil kulak conspiracies could be crushed. Though it is true that where the "mir" was strongest, e.g. along the Volga river, peasants did more or less accept collectivization, whereas where it was weakest, in commercial Ukraine and the Cossack lands, where prosperous horse-riding Cossack peasants lorded over the non-Cossack peasantry, you had the fiercest resistance.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yes, all of that stands, as we would say, and I think it's an interesting question if anything like the commons will exist in socialism (off the cuff, of course there won't be ownership, but there will probably be some distinction between the forest where any of us can go for a walk, or pick flowers, or do something rude, and the forest assigned to Logging Camp #1014). But the OP was using the term "commons" in an idiosyncratic manner, as per her own post above.