A really down to earth and informative piece about a subject I feel is going to be crucial to human survival. I very much appreciated the 'verbing' perspective which prioritises relationships over the forms that they create. Having been on the edges of the more intentional side of Commoning I am keenly aware of the need for commitment for this to prosper. In a system that still platforms and rewards individual striving the lure of personal success or indeed the despair of personal failure is a rock on which Commoning can founder.
I have yet to read your other posts (apart from Housing Commons pt I) so you may have already addressed this but if not I would appreciate one on how to build in longevity to such enterprises.
Longevity needed is different in different contexts. With Housing Commons, obviously we want to be taking houses off the market, and into different property relations, forever.
But forever is a very long time, and the galloping probably makes horizons longer than a few decades moot.
We definitely Nned longevity in housing commons because our model is to raise funds from individuals rather than finance companies. These individuals will need to be confident that prepaid rent vouchers issued to them for 25 years worth of rent on a property they've helped to buy will be redeemed in 25 years time.
Rather than a single strategy for longevity, we need layers of approaches. Rather than a single strategy for longevity, we need layers of approaches.
The first thing we propose is to separate freeholds from leaseholds. The first thing we propose is to separate freeholds from leaseholds. A land commons organisation should own freeholds and do nothing with them bar grant long leaseholds to commons organisations. A land commons organisation should own freeholds and do nothing with them bar grant long leaseholds to commons organisations.
This gives us two organisations with legal title to the land, both of which have constitutions which strongly discourage or make impossible transfer of title to non-commons organisations. This gives us two organisations with legal title to the land, both of which have constitutions which strongly discourage or make impossible transfer of title to non-commons organisations.
Of course, as member-controlled mutuals, and such constitutional arrangements could be voted down by the membership. Of course, as member-controlled mutuals, and such constitutional arrangements could be voted down by the membership.
We manage this risk through using what Eleanor Ostrom calls a monitor, what the viable system model calls system 5, what the moral modalities framework lends on the viable system model calls guardianship, guardianship and what Chris Cook calls a custodian in his non-dominion model. We've learned from all. We manage this risk through using what Eleanor Ostrom calls a monitor, what the viable system model calls system 5, what the moral modalities framework lends on the viable system model calls guardianship, guardianship and what Chris Cook calls a custodian in his non-dominion model. We've learned from all.
There is a special member of our Commons organisation called the Commons Safeguarder, whose role is essentially a veto-only role, and the individuals involved cannot be active members of the Commons organisation. they're the safeguard of four, and they ensure that constitution changes which are antithetical to the spirit of the Commons are voted down. There is a special member of our Commons organisation called the Commons Safeguarder, whose role is essentially a veto-only role, and the individuals involved cannot be active members of the Commons organisation. they're the safeguard of four, and they ensure that constitution changes which are antithetical to the spirit of the Commons are voted down.
There are of course asset locks in the constitutions of both the Housing Commons and the Land Commons. There are of course asset locks in the constitutions of both the Housing Commons and the Land Commons.
There are a number of other constitutional rules laid down which reduce risk - most obviously that neither organisation is allowed to take on substantial debt, leases, (beyond the housing leases), employment contracts, and the like. Anything possible which would bring risk at a scale which could cause the organisation to get anywhere near insolvency, is ruled out of scope.
But constitutional safeguards are brittle and fragile. Real safety comes from human engagement and continued care for the viability and safety of the organisation.
This is why we designed the membership structure of the Commons organisations we build to include different kinds of member, members with different interests, different rights and responsibilities, who are are required to act together to deliver a win-win for all.
All member types have a material dependency upon the continued viability of the commons - they all need it to keep going to get what they joined up for, whether this was a tenancy or a return on investment or a decent job or some combination of those, they all depend on each other. Whether this was a tenancy or a return on investment or a decent job or some combination of those, they all depend on each other.
Thus we build what we call material interdependency.
Again, material benefits are not by themselves deemed sufficient. Again, material benefits are not by themselves deemed sufficient. A viable commons must must above all be a viable social institution, one where continued participation is not just a matter of voting or paying rent or collecting money or doing a job, but where there is a strong social context.
This doesn't mean that commons groups are friendship groups. Indeed, I say with boring frequency, *the price of commoning is engagement in local politics*.
The other members of your housing commons might... Well, not be your friends. Worse, they might be people you actively dislike or disagree with politically or find in other ways hard to get along with.
A commons is not a club, it's a community of interest. A commons is not a club, it's a community of interest. Different members' interests in the Commons do not guarantee that they will see eye to eye about things.
This local politics needs to be contextualised to the commons in question - and in this context, the other layers (the constitutional layer and the material interdependence layer) are important. Specific effort also will be required to bring people together in whatever way makes sense so that they can experience the commons as a whole, as a togetherness around that specific context, which does not need to extend beyond the context.
This helps us avoid the 'universalist' failure of socialist ideology - where everyone is supposed to subscribe to broadly the same set of values, or the 'individualist' failure of right wing ideology, where individual interest is supposed to be relied upon to build the commonweal.
Commons does not need to deride either ideology - but rather aims to work better than both, in the specific commons context in question (not all contexts make for sustainable commons: - this doesn't make them *bad* - but we will be able to discern which contexts (key infrastructure for the basis of life) need to be long-term viable commons for a healthy society.
Obviously, there is a great deal of detail implied by the points above, and that is what we are gradually working through as we nurture our new Commons organisations.
Thank you for such a full response. The means of managing a group of people with disparate views in a way that is both inclusive and decisive is a sort of Holy Grail!
It is however a very necessary goal that we will need to demonstrate is achievable and repeatable. The challenge, in my view, will be to ease people away from the current confrontational mode to a more collaborative and enquiry-based approach.
I am sure there is a hunger for this but all our institutions seem to run on the more combative model beloved by our elite educational system and our political establishment.
I am glad that you and others are engaged in this work which is so necessary. I am finding it difficult to locate such individuals in my corner of the UK but we are moving to a more populated area soon where I hope to have more success!
A really down to earth and informative piece about a subject I feel is going to be crucial to human survival. I very much appreciated the 'verbing' perspective which prioritises relationships over the forms that they create. Having been on the edges of the more intentional side of Commoning I am keenly aware of the need for commitment for this to prosper. In a system that still platforms and rewards individual striving the lure of personal success or indeed the despair of personal failure is a rock on which Commoning can founder.
I have yet to read your other posts (apart from Housing Commons pt I) so you may have already addressed this but if not I would appreciate one on how to build in longevity to such enterprises.
Many thanks
Longevity needed is different in different contexts. With Housing Commons, obviously we want to be taking houses off the market, and into different property relations, forever.
But forever is a very long time, and the galloping probably makes horizons longer than a few decades moot.
We definitely Nned longevity in housing commons because our model is to raise funds from individuals rather than finance companies. These individuals will need to be confident that prepaid rent vouchers issued to them for 25 years worth of rent on a property they've helped to buy will be redeemed in 25 years time.
Rather than a single strategy for longevity, we need layers of approaches. Rather than a single strategy for longevity, we need layers of approaches.
The first thing we propose is to separate freeholds from leaseholds. The first thing we propose is to separate freeholds from leaseholds. A land commons organisation should own freeholds and do nothing with them bar grant long leaseholds to commons organisations. A land commons organisation should own freeholds and do nothing with them bar grant long leaseholds to commons organisations.
This gives us two organisations with legal title to the land, both of which have constitutions which strongly discourage or make impossible transfer of title to non-commons organisations. This gives us two organisations with legal title to the land, both of which have constitutions which strongly discourage or make impossible transfer of title to non-commons organisations.
Of course, as member-controlled mutuals, and such constitutional arrangements could be voted down by the membership. Of course, as member-controlled mutuals, and such constitutional arrangements could be voted down by the membership.
We manage this risk through using what Eleanor Ostrom calls a monitor, what the viable system model calls system 5, what the moral modalities framework lends on the viable system model calls guardianship, guardianship and what Chris Cook calls a custodian in his non-dominion model. We've learned from all. We manage this risk through using what Eleanor Ostrom calls a monitor, what the viable system model calls system 5, what the moral modalities framework lends on the viable system model calls guardianship, guardianship and what Chris Cook calls a custodian in his non-dominion model. We've learned from all.
There is a special member of our Commons organisation called the Commons Safeguarder, whose role is essentially a veto-only role, and the individuals involved cannot be active members of the Commons organisation. they're the safeguard of four, and they ensure that constitution changes which are antithetical to the spirit of the Commons are voted down. There is a special member of our Commons organisation called the Commons Safeguarder, whose role is essentially a veto-only role, and the individuals involved cannot be active members of the Commons organisation. they're the safeguard of four, and they ensure that constitution changes which are antithetical to the spirit of the Commons are voted down.
There are of course asset locks in the constitutions of both the Housing Commons and the Land Commons. There are of course asset locks in the constitutions of both the Housing Commons and the Land Commons.
There are a number of other constitutional rules laid down which reduce risk - most obviously that neither organisation is allowed to take on substantial debt, leases, (beyond the housing leases), employment contracts, and the like. Anything possible which would bring risk at a scale which could cause the organisation to get anywhere near insolvency, is ruled out of scope.
But constitutional safeguards are brittle and fragile. Real safety comes from human engagement and continued care for the viability and safety of the organisation.
This is why we designed the membership structure of the Commons organisations we build to include different kinds of member, members with different interests, different rights and responsibilities, who are are required to act together to deliver a win-win for all.
All member types have a material dependency upon the continued viability of the commons - they all need it to keep going to get what they joined up for, whether this was a tenancy or a return on investment or a decent job or some combination of those, they all depend on each other. Whether this was a tenancy or a return on investment or a decent job or some combination of those, they all depend on each other.
Thus we build what we call material interdependency.
Again, material benefits are not by themselves deemed sufficient. Again, material benefits are not by themselves deemed sufficient. A viable commons must must above all be a viable social institution, one where continued participation is not just a matter of voting or paying rent or collecting money or doing a job, but where there is a strong social context.
This doesn't mean that commons groups are friendship groups. Indeed, I say with boring frequency, *the price of commoning is engagement in local politics*.
The other members of your housing commons might... Well, not be your friends. Worse, they might be people you actively dislike or disagree with politically or find in other ways hard to get along with.
A commons is not a club, it's a community of interest. A commons is not a club, it's a community of interest. Different members' interests in the Commons do not guarantee that they will see eye to eye about things.
This local politics needs to be contextualised to the commons in question - and in this context, the other layers (the constitutional layer and the material interdependence layer) are important. Specific effort also will be required to bring people together in whatever way makes sense so that they can experience the commons as a whole, as a togetherness around that specific context, which does not need to extend beyond the context.
This helps us avoid the 'universalist' failure of socialist ideology - where everyone is supposed to subscribe to broadly the same set of values, or the 'individualist' failure of right wing ideology, where individual interest is supposed to be relied upon to build the commonweal.
Commons does not need to deride either ideology - but rather aims to work better than both, in the specific commons context in question (not all contexts make for sustainable commons: - this doesn't make them *bad* - but we will be able to discern which contexts (key infrastructure for the basis of life) need to be long-term viable commons for a healthy society.
Obviously, there is a great deal of detail implied by the points above, and that is what we are gradually working through as we nurture our new Commons organisations.
Thank you for such a full response. The means of managing a group of people with disparate views in a way that is both inclusive and decisive is a sort of Holy Grail!
It is however a very necessary goal that we will need to demonstrate is achievable and repeatable. The challenge, in my view, will be to ease people away from the current confrontational mode to a more collaborative and enquiry-based approach.
I am sure there is a hunger for this but all our institutions seem to run on the more combative model beloved by our elite educational system and our political establishment.
I am glad that you and others are engaged in this work which is so necessary. I am finding it difficult to locate such individuals in my corner of the UK but we are moving to a more populated area soon where I hope to have more success!