WEBVTT
00:01:02.159 --> 00:01:08.719
So everyone, I'm delighted to have with me today a friend and colleague, David Bollier, who I haven't seen for many a good year.
00:01:08.719 --> 00:01:23.040
And David does wonderful work around the commons, and we're going to have a free-flowing conversational exploration as usual, but around the theme of commoning and maybe bioregionalism, which I know is a particular passion of yours at the moment, David.
00:01:23.040 --> 00:01:33.439
So for those who don't understand what commons-based thinking, activism, and community engagement is, could you introduce us to the wonder of the commons?
00:01:34.079 --> 00:01:34.319
Sure.
00:01:34.319 --> 00:01:49.040
Well, the commons, in the simple put simply, are social systems by which people come together to share and collaborate to create things of value for each other and then distribute the results fairly among themselves.
00:01:49.040 --> 00:02:16.159
And one can think of a lot of examples, such as, well, in the digital world, we think about open source software and Wikipedia and a lot of online collaborations, but it also extends to things like land, which has been kind of the default way that humans have organized themselves for farming and as communities, of coming together to manage the landscape, the water, the wild game, the forests, the fisheries.
00:02:16.159 --> 00:02:19.919
And it in other words, it's not been a market-driven affair.
00:02:19.919 --> 00:02:22.639
It's not been a nation-state-driven affair.
00:02:22.639 --> 00:02:31.120
It's kind of the primordial way that humans, by default, have organized themselves for shared benefit.
00:02:31.120 --> 00:02:47.280
And I would just add that this is kind of increasingly seen as a social paradigm that's very distinct from the state and market in a way to try to get beyond the pathologies of modern capitalism.
00:02:47.840 --> 00:02:48.319
Right.
00:02:48.319 --> 00:03:03.280
And so the the commons is both an old idea, and perhaps we can talk about early commons scholarship and you know the early forms of thinking around the commons, and particularly the need to push back on that whole argument around the tragedy of the commons.
00:03:03.280 --> 00:03:13.439
Um then contrast it with like more contemporary commons as a kind of anti-neoliberalization of nature type movement, which is far more radical.
00:03:13.439 --> 00:03:18.159
Um, so yeah, I'd love to I'd love to hear what you've got to say about all that.
00:03:18.479 --> 00:03:53.919
Well, English history, of course, is at least for the for the Western uh person, is kind of the uh primordial text on this, because it goes back to the Magna Carta when the king was taking for himself all of the forest lands and depriving access to essentially the resources that were essential to survival, uh the trees, the the fuel, the peat, the acorns for the pigs, and many other things, taking it for himself.
00:03:53.919 --> 00:04:19.040
So these original enclosures of the commons were a source of great civil strife, and they eventually resulted in this legal armistice known as the Magna Carta, but one element of that was the now mostly forgotten Charter of the Forest, where the king guaranteed certain rights of commoning to the commoners so that they could survive.
00:04:19.040 --> 00:04:22.399
And this was a major breakthrough in Western civilization.
00:04:22.399 --> 00:04:48.399
Well, the Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest are now seen as quaint oddities of the past, but the whole paradigm of the aristocrats, the wealthy, in current form, corporations in closing what is shared, meaning privatizing it, commoditizing it, uh taking it for themselves, uh is very much a current phenomenon.
00:04:48.399 --> 00:04:59.040
Uh, if anything, with you know, on steroids, because capitalism has so many more tools and concentrated capital to affect these enclosures.
00:04:59.040 --> 00:05:23.120
So the talking about the commons is implicitly about uh withdrawing from the circuits of the nation-state system to create one's own protected space of sharing and mutual support and collaboration and fairness, because we can't look to the liberal polity or capitalism to do that.
00:05:23.120 --> 00:06:01.519
And uh so there's currently a quite an international movement that I often refer to as the commons verse, which takes many diverse forms uh in different theaters of action, in which, you know, people who are trying to farmers trying to share seeds and prevent Monsanto and GMO seeds are very much akin to those who want to share software code and prevent Microsoft and big tech from controlling it all, which are very similar to you can name a dozen other arenas in which the market state system is enclosing our shared wealth for its own benefits.
00:06:01.519 --> 00:06:05.120
Copyright law, trade secret law, patents.
00:06:05.120 --> 00:06:12.800
Um, you know, one could talk, and I do often along, long and hard about these topics.
00:06:12.800 --> 00:06:19.120
And uh so I find this a way to start to reconceptualize contemporary politics and economics.
00:06:19.519 --> 00:06:20.160
It's brilliant.
00:06:20.160 --> 00:06:28.160
And one of the things I think is really interesting is how few people, when you go out in the world, have actually heard of commons and commoning.
00:06:28.160 --> 00:06:38.399
And there's a sense in which it's very hard for people to imagine an otherwise to capitalism, to neoliberalism, to the water they swim in that they take for granted.
00:06:38.399 --> 00:06:55.600
So I'd love you to kind of give an idea, just an overview of how successful, how widespread is this, because I see it as a kind of governance structure that's emergent and in waiting, and it's worked through a lot of stuff.
00:06:55.600 --> 00:07:06.079
It holds immense promise, it's very well established in human history, and it's just there, but not fully appreciated in public discourse.
00:07:06.480 --> 00:07:14.079
Well, I think that its invisibility, its lack of cultural legibility is not an accident.
00:07:14.079 --> 00:07:23.920
Uh, the mandarins of capitalism and economics, you know, don't want us to remember collective action as an antidote or a way to meet our needs.
00:07:23.920 --> 00:07:31.199
It wants to make us all individuals who are subordinate and dependent on capital, corporations, and so forth.
00:07:31.199 --> 00:07:38.000
So part of my self-appointed mission in life has been to try to make the commons more visible.
00:07:38.000 --> 00:08:15.920
And uh a few years ago, I did a book called The Commoners Catalog for Changemaking, based on the whole earth catalog of the 1970s, in which there were little modules of dozens and dozens of different types of commons out there, in which you have cooperatives, you have all sorts of care collaborative collaborations, you have alternative forms of money, you have uh urban commons, where people are, whether through information systems or uh taking over buildings or public spaces, are engaged in commoning.
00:08:15.920 --> 00:08:41.440
There's a whole movement of relocalization and trying to reimagine food systems that get out of the global circuits of commodity food and try to relocalize food and food traditions and more self-reliance of food through community-supported agriculture or community land trusts or the slow food movement or permaculture or agroecology.
00:08:41.440 --> 00:09:11.440
So I I see that there's a lot of commons out there that maybe don't even use the name and vocabulary, but I think there's strategic value in starting to talk that way because you start to situate yourself against capitalism or as an alternative, and you start to find uh along a horizontal plane kindred spirits who they might be involved in a different kind of resource, but they're commoners or they're commoning.
00:09:11.440 --> 00:09:21.039
So um that's sort of I I've done 10 or 11 books on the commons from different perspectives.
00:09:21.039 --> 00:09:26.480
Most recently I did uh Think Like a Commoner second edition.
00:09:26.480 --> 00:09:39.679
I had done one, this introduction to the Commons in 2014, but last year my publisher asked me to uh do an updated revision and it's significantly uh updated and revised.
00:09:39.679 --> 00:09:46.000
And I wrote it in a way that without dumbing it down, a way my mother could understand it, or a newcomer.
00:09:46.000 --> 00:09:53.200
And the point is, it's not some academic conceit or something that's hard to understand.
00:09:53.200 --> 00:09:57.279
It's really as basic as caring and sharing in some respects.
00:09:57.279 --> 00:10:13.120
In other ways, institutionally, legally, financially, it does get complicated because we're all embedded in this capitalist monster, and we need to find creative ways to protect those commons from being captured and enclosed.
00:10:13.120 --> 00:10:16.960
So that's what I try to think about a lot.
00:10:17.279 --> 00:10:31.600
So would you say then that commons are intrinsically anti-capitalist, or is there a risk as well, as so often is the case, that capitalism captures its critique and represents it as a mode of representing capitalism?
00:10:32.000 --> 00:10:33.679
Well, that's that's an excellent question.
00:10:33.679 --> 00:10:38.639
I think that commons are uh, I think they're pre-political.
00:10:38.639 --> 00:10:43.759
They're based on things people love and cherish and want to protect.
00:10:43.759 --> 00:10:48.799
Now, that becomes political when it comes into collision with capitalism.
00:10:48.799 --> 00:10:54.559
And indeed, as you say, capitalism does try to capture and control and change the language.
00:10:54.559 --> 00:11:10.240
And that there's all sorts of attempts to commons wash uh by claiming it, you know, try claiming egalitarian street cred, oh yeah, we're a commons, when in fact it's just a hierarchical centralized organization.
00:11:10.240 --> 00:11:21.200
And so, yes, that's going to happen, but my response to the co-optation of the language is seeing commons as commoning a verb.
00:11:21.200 --> 00:11:23.519
Are you engaged in commoning?
00:11:23.519 --> 00:11:25.519
Do you work with other people?
00:11:25.519 --> 00:11:28.639
Not it's not as if you're all of one mind.
00:11:28.639 --> 00:11:34.799
You have to work hard to bring yourselves into alignment and to coordinate and to resolve conflicts.
00:11:34.799 --> 00:11:42.000
But that's the process, not just claiming the word performatively by saying, Oh yeah, I common.
00:11:42.000 --> 00:11:52.799
Um, and so that's the challenge that the commons presents, but the rewards are a more stable, protected system of meeting your needs.
00:11:52.799 --> 00:11:55.519
Uh, and this is a long-term proposition.
00:11:55.519 --> 00:11:59.360
It's not going to be easy, it's not just electing the right person.
00:11:59.360 --> 00:12:12.080
Um, you know, it's not just participating with your political party, all of which I think are clueless or eager to co-opt a populist language.
00:12:12.080 --> 00:12:29.519
Uh so I see there's the Commons ultimately wants to have a longer, bigger conversation about the nation-state itself as a system of power, because a lot of this backs up to the nation-state and its deep alliance with capital.
00:12:29.519 --> 00:12:42.000
And uh being, you know, the the state takes care of governance and law, and capitalism takes care of production and money making, and they're joined at the hip in that enterprise.
00:12:42.000 --> 00:12:49.679
So, how can we reconfigure state power to serve and protect the commons and not just the investor class?
00:12:50.159 --> 00:12:56.399
So that reconfiguration possibility implies that the nation-state isn't necessarily intrinsically problematic.
00:12:56.399 --> 00:13:00.960
It's really the fusion of the nation-state with capitalist formations.
00:13:00.960 --> 00:13:04.080
Uh I don't want to go further, couldn't we?
00:13:04.399 --> 00:13:19.519
I don't want to get too doctrinaire about that, but I think that the nation-state, as a system of power, has appropriated culture, religion, identity, and declared it uh an artifact of national power.
00:13:19.519 --> 00:13:29.759
And that's where it gets so problematic because I believe that humanity has larger allegiances and aspirations than that with the nation state provides.
00:13:30.080 --> 00:13:34.480
Yeah, and possibly more variegated and situated alliances, right?
00:13:34.480 --> 00:13:41.200
Because, you know, you I kind of always think the paradigm case is kind of Africa, and I've got a very naive understanding of it.
00:13:41.200 --> 00:14:00.000
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that tribal regions were divided by Eurocentric linearities that caused all sorts of problems because there was no sensitivity to ethnic situatedness and pre-existing relational political structures in the broad sense of political.
00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:02.159
Um, and that's problematic.
00:14:02.159 --> 00:14:09.840
And let's face it, nation-state boundaries are artifices, they're constructions.
00:14:10.159 --> 00:14:10.720
Absolutely.
00:14:11.039 --> 00:14:19.840
You know, and so there is um there is a need perhaps to question the state per se whether or not we see it as intrinsically entangled with capitalist formations.
00:14:20.320 --> 00:14:31.519
Particularly, though, the state has been the partner in capitalist goal to declare the world as one world of a uniform grid for markets.
00:14:31.519 --> 00:14:39.679
And therefore, that's kind of a force that is kind of denying the inherent diversity of humankind.
00:14:39.679 --> 00:14:49.519
Uh, it wants to fit everybody into a market regime, a prop private property regime, fungible exchanges of money and value, and so forth.
00:14:49.519 --> 00:15:26.080
And so trying to declare that value and tradition and identity are inherently pluriversal, is the term, multiple multiple in diverse ways, is kind of the implicit cultural agenda of the commons to reclaim that we have different geographic identities uh because based on the landscape and the water and the traditions of that place, uh, all of which capitalism is about eradicating because it wants to just put it into one massive investment grid and global products.
00:15:26.399 --> 00:15:43.360
Uh yeah, and intrinsically linked, I think, to the flattening of colonialism itself, right, in the early days and the kind of there's some, even though you know it's obviously more diverse now, there's an intrinsic Eurocentrism under a lot of those structures.
00:15:43.360 --> 00:15:48.399
I mean, the corporation you can argue is the white man of property writ large.
00:15:48.720 --> 00:15:49.200
Absolutely.
00:15:49.440 --> 00:15:53.759
And you could argue the same about the nation-state, actually, the modern nation-state.
00:15:53.759 --> 00:16:04.799
Um, and I'm very struck by this pluriversalism, which really allows for diversity and relationality with the more than human, which is one of my passions, right?
00:16:04.799 --> 00:16:27.519
Because you've just mentioned topology, geography, locatedness, and the ways in which those inevitably have influences on how we imagine ourselves as communities, as individuals, and you know, our tribes, our families, and our gatherings of various kinds, which I'm guessing feeds a bit into bioregionalism.
00:16:28.320 --> 00:16:28.960
It does.
00:16:28.960 --> 00:17:01.120
I mean, I think that I've recently, in recent years, gotten more involved in the bioregional framing of a lot of change, because unless we can become biophysically rooted in places and be committed to them, as opposed to being cosmopolitan capitalists uh searching for market gains wherever we can, and being essentially disdainful or contemptuous of what is unique about different places in the world, we're going to be lost.
00:17:01.120 --> 00:17:17.119
And we're not, and I think one reason we have such serious ecological problems from climate on change to dozens of other uh such crises, is because we have been treating the earth as a thing, uh, not as a living entity of which we're a part.
00:17:17.119 --> 00:17:31.359
And so bioregionalism helps us get into this what I call auto shift, an ontological shift, to understand that we are relational beings, not sovereign, autonomous individuals.
00:17:31.359 --> 00:17:51.599
And once we start to get out of our modern capitalist conceit that we're sovereign individuals, self-made, and so forth, that we can begin to reconnect with each other, with past and future generations, with other living beings, uh, animals, plants, and beyond.
00:17:51.599 --> 00:17:52.960
Gaia.
00:17:52.960 --> 00:17:58.799
Um, and so that's kind of the challenge that I see the commons feeding into.
00:17:58.799 --> 00:18:04.559
But bioregionalism as a frame helps give it some operational focus.
00:18:04.559 --> 00:18:26.480
And there are, in fact, dozens of different, you know, embryonic movements around the world trying to revive the bioregional movement that started in the 1970s and 80s, which sort of has been latent, dormant for the past 40 years, thanks to the surge and now vulnerability of neoliberalism.
00:18:26.480 --> 00:18:50.000
Neoliberal capitalism from Reagan Thatcher on up to uh well, I'd say the the end of Trump, uh the first Trump administration, it's now we're start people are starting to say, yeah, neoliberal capitalism is the problem, and starting to open up a space for a broader political discussion than we've had in decades.
00:18:50.160 --> 00:18:56.240
So is really exciting um and necessary, actually.
00:18:56.240 --> 00:18:58.720
Beyond exciting, it's it's vital.
00:18:58.960 --> 00:18:59.359
Yes.
00:18:59.519 --> 00:19:04.720
Um, and it for me it comes down as well to our nature as embodied beings, right?
00:19:04.720 --> 00:19:10.640
Because we are porous, like you know, the skin is more of a conversation than a wall.
00:19:10.640 --> 00:19:19.279
Um, and we have these relationships between even our gut microbiota and the biota of the world in which we move and live.
00:19:19.279 --> 00:19:35.759
Our local regional food is grown in soils that have certain microbes, and there's more and more evidence coming out all the time about the complexity of the intimacies between our embodied lives and the worlds in which we are embedded.
00:19:35.759 --> 00:19:39.920
And I think this is a really, really interesting and hopeful development.
00:19:39.920 --> 00:19:48.960
I'd really love you to open up bioregionalism a bit more for people who really don't understand the terminology or what it really drives at.
00:19:48.960 --> 00:19:51.920
What is it that you're really talking about here?
00:19:51.920 --> 00:19:53.680
What does it boil down to?
00:19:53.680 --> 00:19:56.000
And what are the central concerns?
00:19:56.559 --> 00:20:23.759
Well, there's uh a belief among a lot of ecologists that there are natural regions without bright uh dark, without I'm sorry, without strict bright lines defining them the way political jurisdictions are defined, but rough regions in which the watershed, the type of flora and fauna, and the types of livelihoods that can be earned there are based in a bioregional way.
00:20:23.759 --> 00:20:46.000
Now it's not as if we can utterly revert to a pre-global world, but to the extent that our commerce and our identities can start to grow into a bioregional frame, we're gonna be much better situated for being resilient to disruptions of our economy and nature.
00:20:46.000 --> 00:20:57.440
And we're gonna be much more uh, I'd say, socially stable because we will have affiliations with each other and cooperations with each other.
00:20:57.440 --> 00:21:09.359
Uh the chat the challenge is how, in the midst of the existing nation-state system and international treaty organizations, we can begin to grow into these alternatives.
00:21:09.359 --> 00:21:18.160
And I see it's a long relational process, but I see a fierce energy and creativity that's being applied to it.
00:21:18.160 --> 00:21:24.880
And I see dozens of different genres of commons uh attempting to do this.
00:21:24.880 --> 00:21:34.000
And I think we're gonna be experiencing some serious shocks as the global capitalist system uh can't adapt.
00:21:34.000 --> 00:21:37.039
And it's not gonna be a linear change.
00:21:37.039 --> 00:21:43.519
I think it's gonna be like a phase shift that happens rather rapidly, as people say our survival will depend on this.
00:21:43.519 --> 00:21:46.240
It's not gonna be merely discretionary.
00:21:46.240 --> 00:21:51.359
Uh so I mean that's sort of the the big picture scenario I see.
00:21:51.359 --> 00:21:54.799
But it it will take different flavors in different regions.
00:21:54.799 --> 00:21:59.519
Some areas like Cascadia in the Pacific Northwest of the United States.
00:21:59.519 --> 00:22:08.400
Are well uh advanced in thinking about this and more mobilized because they go back um 50 years in thinking about this.
00:22:08.400 --> 00:22:20.880
Others are doing it for the first time, others have been doing it without even having a vocabulary or thinking about it because they've been maybe more insulated from the global circuits of capitalism and have not been as corrupted by it.
00:22:20.880 --> 00:22:24.160
So that's where I see this all going.
00:22:24.160 --> 00:22:32.400
And admittedly, in today's climate, people sometimes say, bioregionalism, what's that?
00:22:32.400 --> 00:22:43.920
But I think it has enormous potential for getting beyond a lot of the sterile ideological debates and starting to get us into this relational mindset that you were referring to.
00:22:44.480 --> 00:22:45.680
Yeah, absolutely.
00:22:45.680 --> 00:22:50.160
And have you got some cool examples that people can find it relatable?
00:22:50.160 --> 00:22:57.920
People who are unfamiliar with this, have you got examples of bioregional projects or communities where you know specific things are happening?
00:22:58.400 --> 00:23:29.680
Well, there's a lot of energy going into reimagining food systems so that they're local and uh trying to get different players from farmers to distributors to processors to restaurants to the food consumers themselves to start to become mutually interdependent and look to each other and to become therefore become more self-reliant and not depend upon all this imported fruit and vegetable and meat from around the globe, which of course is part of the problem.
00:23:29.680 --> 00:23:32.559
Um, so that's an inspiring example.
00:23:32.559 --> 00:24:05.839
There's a whole set of examples that go under the heading of cosmolocal production, where open source design and knowledge is shared for how to make furniture, how to make modular houses, how to make motor vehicles, how to make um well, my favorite example is an automated insulin delivery pump and smartphone app that people with diabetes created to because the medical and device industry was not creating that.
00:24:05.839 --> 00:24:17.200
But so they shared this information and built it as an open source collaborative technology, but then you can produce it locally with your own cheaper modular components.
00:24:17.200 --> 00:24:26.960
So, what I'm saying is cosmolocalism is a form of production that could take care of a lot of these things in a way that doesn't depend on the global supply chains.
00:24:26.960 --> 00:24:47.039
And you know, there's other attempts to, you know, there's a bioregional festivals that are occurring as a way to try to get the arts and culture world and ordinary people to start to have uh cultural representations of their regional uh identities and feelings.
00:24:47.039 --> 00:24:57.039
And you know, in Oregon in the US, they have uh an image called salmon nation because the salmon are an important species there.
00:24:57.039 --> 00:25:10.799
And they talk about salmon nation, and it sort of gives a cultural framing for thinking about oh, yeah, we're we're really kind of dependent upon the salmon because of this, that, and the next thing.
00:25:10.799 --> 00:25:13.440
So there's these experiments.
00:25:13.440 --> 00:25:21.039
We don't have a typology, this is not a discipline yet, but there are a lot of really robust instructive examples.
00:25:21.359 --> 00:25:25.759
I kind of love the idea of dropping a yet and never making it a discipline.
00:25:27.279 --> 00:25:33.279
Well, making it a discipline is the first step for its control and corruption, you know.
00:25:33.759 --> 00:26:08.720
Yeah, because it's what strikes me is in a sense, what's happening is there's a whole set of imaginaries for worlds beyond the limits of the current dominant one world world imaginary, which we've all soaked in for, you know, for at least 40, 50 years and earlier, of course, but neoliberalism's done enormous damage, um, taking the ceiling off inequality, producing, you know, the fundamental discrepancy between unaccountable levels of wealth and the basic needs of ordinary people.
00:26:08.720 --> 00:26:11.599
And it's a huge, huge threat to democracy.
00:26:11.599 --> 00:26:18.240
I mean, I keep hearing people like um people in the states saying billionaires should pay their fair share.
00:26:18.240 --> 00:26:31.119
And I'm like, that's great, but it's missing the point because the the distributive inequality alone is inherently destructive to democracy.
00:26:31.119 --> 00:26:44.640
But what I'm hearing in everything you're saying is this isn't an imaginary of coming together, a kind of horizontality, a kind of relationship across rather than up and down.
00:26:44.640 --> 00:26:51.279
And it's and it's intrinsically situated, it's intrinsically embedded.
00:26:51.279 --> 00:26:59.440
Um, you know, there obviously there are less embedded forms like digital forms, but even those are relationally embedded by the sound of it.
00:26:59.440 --> 00:27:02.559
So it's it's just huge, this imaginary shift.
00:27:03.039 --> 00:27:24.240
It it implies a different idea of politics itself, and one that's based on greater authenticity and less on tactical or media manipulations, uh, which centralized systems are notorious for because you capture that centralized node and you capture a lot else.
00:27:24.240 --> 00:27:40.240
When this is all distributed and diversified, it's harder to capture and it has to be based on reality principles more than these systems that are so far removed from even the idea that we're part of an earthly biological system.
00:27:40.240 --> 00:27:44.720
Uh, we we don't even think we moderns don't even think that.
00:27:44.720 --> 00:27:56.400
So we do have you you sort of alluded to this, we need we have a big challenge in unlearning what we've been acculturated to over decades, and that is at least as much a problem.
00:27:56.400 --> 00:28:06.160
It's not as if we can simply, oh, be like an indigenous person, because we have to escape modernity itself uh to get to this place, yeah.
00:28:06.240 --> 00:28:08.960
But we and we can't do it by going pre-modern.
00:28:08.960 --> 00:28:11.519
No, no, like that's not the way.
00:28:11.519 --> 00:28:21.359
We can't just romanticize and imagine some pre-ro pre-modern, like almost Luddite return to a some pristine imagined before.
00:28:21.359 --> 00:28:24.160
You know, that would be extremely destructive, I think.
00:28:24.160 --> 00:28:32.880
We have to be adaptive and future-facing while being radically present and embedded in what's really happening, what's really materially real.
00:28:33.759 --> 00:28:53.039
And I think that what is important is that we bend the structural beams of modernity enough that we can make it fair, participatory, have bottom-up creative agency again, all of which have been denied by the existing market state system.
00:28:53.039 --> 00:29:32.799
And so it's that's why I take encouragement by these seemingly spontaneous movements that are precisely trying to honor that, whether they go under the rubric of the commons, or there's a lot of adjacent movements that you could cite from the transition town movement and cooperatives and donut economics and uh, you know, the well-being economy and so forth, all of which have a piece of the puzzle in trying to reimagine the shared shared wealth that we own ourselves, and therefore we can pre-distribute the wealth instead of trying to redistribute it later.
00:29:32.799 --> 00:29:47.839
In some ways, it's about having greater upfront mutual ownership of the resources we depend on and our own infrastructures to enable common aims so that it's not a heroic aberrational thing, but something that is more normal.
00:29:48.000 --> 00:29:51.200
Um and it reimagines wealth itself, doesn't it?
00:29:51.200 --> 00:30:05.680
Because it you know, it definancializes it, not entirely, because obviously money still matters, but there are multiple modes of well-being and celebration that are not monetary, that commons also attest to.
00:30:05.680 --> 00:30:09.200
I'm thinking of seed sharing cooperatives in India, for example.
00:30:09.200 --> 00:30:25.759
And you know, I think it was Vandanashiva who was talking about the radical nature, the radical political nature of being able to grow your own food, like how much sovereignty, you know, to borrow that term, that gives you as a human being.
00:30:25.759 --> 00:30:29.839
Um, and that's a non-monetary mode of power and wealth.
00:30:30.400 --> 00:30:43.440
In the US civil rights movement, this famous activist Fannie Lou Hamer created agricultural co-op farms because it was a defense against white supremacist action against them.
00:30:43.440 --> 00:30:51.039
Because once if you could grow your own food, you could have some degree of control and autonomy in your life against that kind of behaviors.
00:30:51.039 --> 00:31:06.880
So this is where I think the vision of a different world can come in and start to grow on a better foundation than um liberal, let's just call it liberal reformism.
00:31:06.880 --> 00:31:18.880
Which I don't want to make this an either-or proposition because there are people who are doing important work and trying to tame the barbarity of the current system, and I think that needs to be applauded.
00:31:18.880 --> 00:31:28.640
But I think we have to realize the limited affordances of some of that work because it's not necessarily leading to system change or structural change.
00:31:28.960 --> 00:31:29.359
Exactly.
00:31:29.359 --> 00:31:34.240
It can just rehabilitate something by making it more bearable, which is the risk, right?
00:31:34.240 --> 00:31:35.039
Right.
00:31:35.039 --> 00:31:39.920
So you need you need, I think you need a multiplicity of approaches.
00:31:39.920 --> 00:31:42.640
And we talk about an onto shift.
00:31:42.640 --> 00:31:58.720
I suspect we need multiple onto shifts in the sense that we're looking for um epistemic multiplicity, many ways of knowing, many modes of truth telling that are not just kind of making crap up.
00:31:58.720 --> 00:32:30.160
So we're not talking about just chatting nonsense a la online influencers who talk about things they know nothing about, but we are talking about a multiplicity of perspectives that are embedded in long-lived experience, maybe from alternative rationalities of some either antiquity or worth, where there's some probity, there's some value, there's some weight, there's some resonance to them, um, rather than any one view.
00:32:30.160 --> 00:32:36.000
So if there is a one view, it's simply an invitation into a space of multiplicity.
00:32:36.000 --> 00:32:40.880
And, you know, it's like you said, you implied it's not necessarily easy.
00:32:40.880 --> 00:33:16.799
And I I'm always saying this, but I'm always struck by Donna Haraway's beautiful invitation to stay with the trouble, to stay with the frayings and the graspings and the weavings and the rubbings of birthing alternative ways of imagining alternative possible worlds or ways of worlding worlds, and and thinking about the ways in which it matters, which ideas have ideas, which thoughts think thoughts, which languages construct languages, going right down to those fundamental questions of power.
00:33:16.799 --> 00:33:36.880
Um, and it has to be, I think, fundamentally distributive, as you've said, you know, you know, kind of in a way it's ecological without wanting to romanticize ecology, in the sense that it's it's very much more like the way natural systems, particularly rhizomatic systems, work.
00:33:37.680 --> 00:33:45.359
And I agree with that, and the but that agenda is no longer going to be discretionary or nice.
00:33:45.359 --> 00:34:18.320
I think it's gonna be a survival mechanism because with the surging of AI, which is going to try to systematize everything through cognitive knowledge uh or purporatively cognitive knowledge, in some ways it's just language patterns that are plausibly uh not forms of knowledge, but nonetheless, trying to standardize our cultural knowledge base and cultural base, it's going to be a radical act to assert these alternative epistemologies and to stick with them as serious things.
00:34:18.320 --> 00:34:22.559
So um turbulence ahead.
00:34:22.960 --> 00:34:29.039
Absolutely, and it strikes me as well that AI is in itself potentially another mode of enclosure.
00:34:29.360 --> 00:34:30.239
Absolutely, it is.
00:34:30.719 --> 00:34:45.039
You know, we're already looking at you know commons like wiki being raided by AI to generate its outputs, which make a very few people very rich at the cost of the rest.
00:34:45.519 --> 00:35:03.679
It's like a a uh commercial simulacrum of reality, the way genetically modified seeds are kind of simulating ecologically uh originated seeds, but only because they can get their commercial proprietary hooks into them.
00:35:03.679 --> 00:35:14.159
And AI is sort of trying to be the overlord form of knowledge uh curation that you're gonna have to pay the piper every time you participate in that culture.
00:35:14.159 --> 00:35:20.400
It's like fiendishly uh ingenious and going to they aspire to be ubiquitous.
00:35:20.400 --> 00:35:27.920
Whether it can have enough stability to not be volatile and catastrophic, we still don't know.
00:35:28.239 --> 00:35:28.800
We don't know.
00:35:28.800 --> 00:35:37.360
And it would be interesting to see, wouldn't it, to imagine ways in which it could externalize its intern, you know, internalize its externalities.
00:35:37.360 --> 00:35:40.400
So at the moment, you data centers use of water.
00:35:40.400 --> 00:35:45.440
Is there a way of actually making them sustainably ecologically responsible?
00:35:45.440 --> 00:35:54.800
And then is there a way of actually AI itself being democratized or commonized in some future alternative configuration?
00:35:54.800 --> 00:35:59.039
Because one thing's for clear is for sure, it's not going anywhere.
00:35:59.039 --> 00:36:04.000
And so we have to kind of think about how then do we reimagine it?
00:36:04.000 --> 00:36:14.320
How then do we bring it into these other imaginaries and imagine different ways of relating to it as an emergent structure of social reality?
00:36:14.960 --> 00:36:25.199
Uh, to the extent that AI is kind of this distilled essence of the political economic reality of capitalism, that's it's a major task to get to that because it is.
00:36:25.199 --> 00:36:41.440
They own the property rights, they have the big database data sets that the rest of us don't, and shifting those so that are accessible and usable in a popular, diversified way, that's a tall order tantement to toppling capitalism.
00:36:41.760 --> 00:36:42.480
Yeah, it is.
00:36:42.480 --> 00:36:45.679
And I wonder if that's actually where we have to go in the end.
00:36:45.679 --> 00:36:52.480
You know, there I I mean, Thatcher was always famous for saying there is no alternative to neoliberalism.
00:36:52.480 --> 00:37:15.280
And I think we've got to the point where there is no alternative to actually overthrowing neoliber liberalism and actually capitalism itself, and moving into other forms of political formation that are much more commons-based or commons-like, you know, that such as the imagination of the human species that we don't actually know yet what alternative forms could emerge.
00:37:15.679 --> 00:37:23.440
Well, that's why I sort of think it's I feel very strongly of the need to develop a coherent.
00:37:23.440 --> 00:37:25.440
Well, there's two things that come to mind.
00:37:25.440 --> 00:37:40.000
Coherent islands of co islands of coherence is the phrase that the Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prijgoni uh asserted, that islands of coherence can change the dynamics of the entire system in ways that are not anticipated.
00:37:40.000 --> 00:37:40.960
And that's one.
00:37:40.960 --> 00:37:51.840
And two, Vaclav Havel, as a cultural dissident in the 70s, was asked, How do you deal with a totalizing system that you can't rationally persuade or have civic action against?
00:37:51.840 --> 00:38:02.320
And he said, you develop a parallel polis of horizontal relationships that prefigure the world you want, that allow you to speak the truth and wholesome values.
00:38:02.320 --> 00:38:24.159
And I see that as a kind of a rough metaphor for how we need to develop this parallel polis of diverse players of the sort I've mentioned in the past uh half hour to begin to identify with each other and coordinate with each other and to become a different moral center of gravity.
00:38:24.480 --> 00:38:25.360
Yeah, totally.
00:38:25.360 --> 00:38:37.920
And I I love the idea of there of the prefigurative, because then you're getting away from oppositionalism, which by definition keeps you stuck on the other side of a kind of binary and locked in a particular energy.
00:38:37.920 --> 00:38:45.840
None of which, of course, suggests that there isn't a need for critical awareness and critique, because there always is, including critique of our new formations.
00:38:45.840 --> 00:38:55.280
We have to always be able to have that reflexive capacity to look honestly at what we're doing and say, okay, how is power falling through this now?
00:38:55.280 --> 00:39:08.880
Is there, you know, even in a commons formation, we know there are subtle forms of domination that humans can operate, you know, against each other within even the most idealized community formation.
00:39:08.880 --> 00:39:14.079
So that critical reflexive kind of question of power never goes away.
00:39:14.079 --> 00:39:25.440
But the need to move into an imagination that is moves beyond oppositionalism, moves beyond the limits of the present imaginary to prefigure possible worlds otherwise.
00:39:25.440 --> 00:39:27.679
And this idea of horizontality.
00:39:27.679 --> 00:39:43.760
I just had a conversation with my friend Andreas Philippopoulos Mihelopoulos in this same series where he's written a book about hydro justice, and he's very move much moving towards a celebration of horizontality against verticality.
00:39:43.760 --> 00:40:06.159
He's not saying get rid of verticality entirely, but recognize its limits and really horizontality and water as a figuration, an onto figuration, we could say, for alternatives in a way is even more radical than rhizomatic thinking because rhizomes move along particular channels, water seeps, it just finds a way.
00:40:06.159 --> 00:40:14.239
Um, and it reminds me in this context, our conversation of William Connolly's idea of the politics of swarming.
00:40:14.239 --> 00:40:19.039
There's something about the need to overflow, to flow past the limits, right?
00:40:19.039 --> 00:40:22.320
To move beyond the banks of the present.
00:40:22.320 --> 00:40:26.480
Um, so I love that notion of a prefiguration.
00:40:26.960 --> 00:40:38.320
And I think it's going to have to sort itself out as the brittle, imploding existing hierarchical systems no longer function well enough.
00:40:38.320 --> 00:40:57.039
And people will say, Oh, we do need to swarm, we do need to comment, we knew, and I think there'll be a big uh testing out and of what will what can go the distance, what has the hardiness, what has the creative uh degree of empowerment, and so and so forth.
00:40:57.039 --> 00:41:10.960
But uh, you know, maybe that's a little further down the road when the uh unsustainability, the current systems become more obvious or acknowledged.
00:41:10.960 --> 00:41:26.719
I think people, especially and even in power, say, oh, we've got some problems here, but they're not willing to use uh Prime Minister Kearney's phrase, take the sign out of the window from the the Vakrov-Havel speech.
00:41:26.719 --> 00:41:38.719
Yes, in which they're still paying uh saying the shibboleth, still mouthing the empty phrases, as opposed to saying we need to get down and dirty and talk real about this.
00:41:39.039 --> 00:41:49.199
Yeah, which is where you I kind of keep hoping for this commons generativity to bubble up into political awareness, general political awareness.
00:41:49.199 --> 00:41:55.519
Because as I said, you know, when you when you talk to people, just ordinary people about politics, they don't see an alternative.
00:41:55.519 --> 00:41:59.360
And that's what generates a sense of hopelessness.
00:41:59.360 --> 00:42:16.159
Um having said that, I'm there's something very exciting happening in the United Kingdom at the moment with the rise of the Green Party, which is genuinely interested in alternatives and you know does engage with policy positions which are not business as usual.
00:42:16.480 --> 00:42:24.320
But that my question would be: can they make the Anto shift, or will they be like the German Green Party that got sucked into the standard system?
00:42:24.320 --> 00:42:34.639
Um can they find ways to reimagine state power and how it functions as an enabling force as opposed to a centralized controlling force?
00:42:34.960 --> 00:42:37.119
Yeah, that's a really interesting question.
00:42:37.119 --> 00:42:39.519
I kind of hope that they can.
00:42:39.519 --> 00:42:51.440
I think the value system that they're generate generated by, they're the the value system that uplifts the energies, could move very much in that direction.
00:42:51.440 --> 00:42:55.360
It's um, I mean, Zach Polanski talks about eco-populism.
00:42:55.360 --> 00:42:57.920
It's I don't think it's socialism as usual.
00:42:57.920 --> 00:43:06.639
I think it is something more imaginative and certainly something more generative in the sense of moving towards the sensibilities of ordinary people.
00:43:06.639 --> 00:43:11.039
I mean, one of the latest developments was the election of a woman called Hannah Spencer.
00:43:11.039 --> 00:43:18.239
I don't know if you follow this, but she's a plumber and plasterer from Manchester, and she's kind of a very ordinary person.
00:43:18.239 --> 00:43:20.960
That's how she presents, and she's in parliament.
00:43:20.960 --> 00:43:24.480
And the basic message is we need more ordinary people in parliament.
00:43:24.480 --> 00:43:29.280
There's something incredibly refreshing about even the simplicity of that.
00:43:29.280 --> 00:43:48.079
But once you're in government, then you are constricted by all the pre-existing fabrics of this system, its institutional gravity, its intensifications of um habit, and all the kind of architectural memory of the system.
00:43:48.079 --> 00:43:59.760
So that becomes quite an interesting point of testing because it's so much easier to be a voice on the edge offering critique and prefiguration, even it's much harder to operationalize.
00:43:59.760 --> 00:44:06.000
Once you're within the structures that pre-exist, your capacity to change it.
00:44:06.639 --> 00:44:16.079
There's a fantastic book by a former um uh well, a Chilean former journalist who became a constitutional scholar.
00:44:16.079 --> 00:44:46.719
She wrote a book about towards an anti-oligarchal uh constitution, talking about uh the failure of constitutions to have sit have uh different structural vehicles for popular sentiment to be expressed as opposed to representative, uh means that the system is already entropic and not going to last because it needs to renew itself from that bottom-up participation by ordinary people.
00:44:46.719 --> 00:45:04.400
And so we need structural means, whether they're citizen assemblies or sortition uh in represent being represented in legislatures, to have ordinary people sentiments, she calls it plebeian constitutionalism, uh, represented.
00:45:04.400 --> 00:45:12.239
And I find that a fascinating and deep insight for the dilemma of contemporary capitalist democracies.
00:45:12.559 --> 00:45:22.639
Yeah, and it raises questions about what representation even means, you know, and and I mean, I'm always exercised there for as a former legal scholar.
00:45:22.639 --> 00:45:46.320
This always jumps into my mind is the the kind of need to move beyond the merely human when we start talking about representationalism, to start thinking about how do we, you know, obviously we can never escape our human perspective, but we do have means of understanding more than human realities through science, through a kind of prosthetic of different epistemological means.
00:45:46.320 --> 00:45:52.480
They're limited, but how do we start thinking beyond simply anthropocentrism?
00:45:52.960 --> 00:46:06.400
How do we begin to respect, let's just use the word personhood of other living beings and their own ontological aspirations and needs?
00:46:06.400 --> 00:46:10.400
Uh and that's not a fanciful question, that's an urgent question.
00:46:10.880 --> 00:46:13.039
Extremely urgent question, absolutely.
00:46:13.039 --> 00:46:20.559
And you know, not an odd question for lawyers, because after all, corporations are persons, the Taj Mahal is a legal person.
00:46:20.559 --> 00:46:26.000
I mean, you know, it's not an odd thing to generate persons of multiple kinds.
00:46:26.000 --> 00:46:42.480
Um, and we have been very bad, actually, at thinking about the kind of personhood of living lively more than human or non-human beings, as opposed to persons that we generate to control through property or capital.
00:46:42.800 --> 00:46:59.440
And the only kicker I would put to that is I've read a fascinating book called The Problem with Personhood, yeah, about how legal personhood is starting to essentially vampire-like, extract all these living persons into Western jurisprudential notions of a person.
00:46:59.440 --> 00:47:00.400
Yes, it does.
00:47:00.400 --> 00:47:07.280
In a way that degrades this experience of the presence of other living beings.
00:47:07.599 --> 00:47:08.079
Absolutely.
00:47:08.079 --> 00:47:12.079
And even the notion of personateness could be problematized.
00:47:12.320 --> 00:47:13.360
Yes, yes.
00:47:14.320 --> 00:47:15.440
What does its import?
00:47:16.000 --> 00:47:21.199
Well, I mean, to the extent that the microbiome makes up such a vast amount of ourselves.
00:47:21.199 --> 00:47:23.039
What is the self, after all?
00:47:23.440 --> 00:47:24.719
Yes, exactly.
00:47:24.719 --> 00:47:25.679
Exactly.
00:47:26.480 --> 00:47:34.079
In my mind from uh Francisco Varella, the dissident theoretical biologist, he said the self doesn't exist.
00:47:34.079 --> 00:47:37.199
We're part of a meshwork of selfless selves.
00:47:37.199 --> 00:47:37.920
Exactly.
00:47:37.920 --> 00:47:39.519
Very Buddhist idea.
00:47:39.840 --> 00:47:40.639
It is, exactly.
00:47:40.639 --> 00:48:13.760
And it and it really swings back to this whole question of you know, the whole prefigurative idea of commoning demands actually an evolution in the capacity of the human being to recognize that the things we take so seriously about a sense of self need to be released in order that we can be really comfortable with complexity, really comfortable with the more than human, the flux and the flow, the it in the eye, um, the multiplicity that we in fact are.
00:48:13.760 --> 00:48:23.039
Um and when we take that much, much more seriously, in my view, we tend to flourish because we're not rigid, we're not constricted, we're not locked down.
00:48:23.039 --> 00:48:32.880
And how I read the politics at the present day, the the major inflection point that we're at between so-called left and so-called right.
00:48:32.880 --> 00:48:54.159
There's a tendency, I think, between there's a tension between a kind of contraction into this is what we've always been, we have to go back, we've made a mistake, it's all got too crazy, you know, we've got to re-establish certain forms of power and cling on to them.
00:48:54.159 --> 00:48:59.679
And a movement towards, no, let's expand, let's change, let's become more fluid.
00:48:59.679 --> 00:49:04.960
And it's the fluidity that some people find so threatening at the moment.
00:49:05.599 --> 00:49:10.159
I I think that is a serious challenge because it's paradoxical.
00:49:10.159 --> 00:49:20.800
People do want and need security in their life, and surrendering to the flow is radically disorienting and troubling.
00:49:20.960 --> 00:49:25.679
Uh, and yet these and yet weirdly grounding.
00:49:26.000 --> 00:49:31.679
These rigid brittle structures we have are no longer properly grounded in let's just call it reality.
00:49:31.840 --> 00:49:32.320
Yeah.
00:49:32.559 --> 00:49:35.440
Meaning the reality of of living systems.
00:49:35.440 --> 00:49:39.519
So uh this is uh maybe that's kind of sort of a deep civilizational paradox.
00:49:39.519 --> 00:49:43.920
We have to is civilization compatible with living systems, yeah.
00:49:44.480 --> 00:49:48.239
Certainly civilization as it's being conceived as civilized.
00:49:48.480 --> 00:49:48.960
Exactly.
00:49:49.039 --> 00:49:50.000
Yeah, exactly.
00:49:50.000 --> 00:49:52.159
There's some, yeah, there's a huge invitation here.
00:49:52.159 --> 00:49:53.519
It's very exciting.
00:49:53.519 --> 00:49:55.599
Um, David, thank you so much.
00:49:55.599 --> 00:49:57.519
I've really enjoyed speaking to you.
00:49:57.519 --> 00:49:58.559
I always do.
00:49:58.960 --> 00:50:05.440
Well, I've enjoyed reconnecting with you and uh thank you for eliciting some ideas I didn't even know I had.
00:50:06.320 --> 00:50:08.239
Well, thank you for sharing them.
00:50:08.239 --> 00:50:10.559
I'm just gonna stop the recording.
00:01:02.159 --> 00:01:08.719
So everyone, I'm delighted to have with me today a friend and colleague, David Bollier, who I haven't seen for many a good year.
00:01:08.719 --> 00:01:23.040
And David does wonderful work around the commons, and we're going to have a free-flowing conversational exploration as usual, but around the theme of commoning and maybe bioregionalism, which I know is a particular passion of yours at the moment, David.
00:01:23.040 --> 00:01:33.439
So for those who don't understand what commons-based thinking, activism, and community engagement is, could you introduce us to the wonder of the commons?
00:01:34.079 --> 00:01:34.319
Sure.
00:01:34.319 --> 00:01:49.040
Well, the commons, in the simple put simply, are social systems by which people come together to share and collaborate to create things of value for each other and then distribute the results fairly among themselves.
00:01:49.040 --> 00:02:16.159
And one can think of a lot of examples, such as, well, in the digital world, we think about open source software and Wikipedia and a lot of online collaborations, but it also extends to things like land, which has been kind of the default way that humans have organized themselves for farming and as communities, of coming together to manage the landscape, the water, the wild game, the forests, the fisheries.
00:02:16.159 --> 00:02:19.919
And it in other words, it's not been a market-driven affair.
00:02:19.919 --> 00:02:22.639
It's not been a nation-state-driven affair.
00:02:22.639 --> 00:02:31.120
It's kind of the primordial way that humans, by default, have organized themselves for shared benefit.
00:02:31.120 --> 00:02:47.280
And I would just add that this is kind of increasingly seen as a social paradigm that's very distinct from the state and market in a way to try to get beyond the pathologies of modern capitalism.
00:02:47.840 --> 00:02:48.319
Right.
00:02:48.319 --> 00:03:03.280
And so the the commons is both an old idea, and perhaps we can talk about early commons scholarship and you know the early forms of thinking around the commons, and particularly the need to push back on that whole argument around the tragedy of the commons.
00:03:03.280 --> 00:03:13.439
Um then contrast it with like more contemporary commons as a kind of anti-neoliberalization of nature type movement, which is far more radical.
00:03:13.439 --> 00:03:18.159
Um, so yeah, I'd love to I'd love to hear what you've got to say about all that.
00:03:18.479 --> 00:03:53.919
Well, English history, of course, is at least for the for the Western uh person, is kind of the uh primordial text on this, because it goes back to the Magna Carta when the king was taking for himself all of the forest lands and depriving access to essentially the resources that were essential to survival, uh the trees, the the fuel, the peat, the acorns for the pigs, and many other things, taking it for himself.
00:03:53.919 --> 00:04:19.040
So these original enclosures of the commons were a source of great civil strife, and they eventually resulted in this legal armistice known as the Magna Carta, but one element of that was the now mostly forgotten Charter of the Forest, where the king guaranteed certain rights of commoning to the commoners so that they could survive.
00:04:19.040 --> 00:04:22.399
And this was a major breakthrough in Western civilization.
00:04:22.399 --> 00:04:48.399
Well, the Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest are now seen as quaint oddities of the past, but the whole paradigm of the aristocrats, the wealthy, in current form, corporations in closing what is shared, meaning privatizing it, commoditizing it, uh taking it for themselves, uh is very much a current phenomenon.
00:04:48.399 --> 00:04:59.040
Uh, if anything, with you know, on steroids, because capitalism has so many more tools and concentrated capital to affect these enclosures.
00:04:59.040 --> 00:05:23.120
So the talking about the commons is implicitly about uh withdrawing from the circuits of the nation-state system to create one's own protected space of sharing and mutual support and collaboration and fairness, because we can't look to the liberal polity or capitalism to do that.
00:05:23.120 --> 00:06:01.519
And uh so there's currently a quite an international movement that I often refer to as the commons verse, which takes many diverse forms uh in different theaters of action, in which, you know, people who are trying to farmers trying to share seeds and prevent Monsanto and GMO seeds are very much akin to those who want to share software code and prevent Microsoft and big tech from controlling it all, which are very similar to you can name a dozen other arenas in which the market state system is enclosing our shared wealth for its own benefits.
00:06:01.519 --> 00:06:05.120
Copyright law, trade secret law, patents.
00:06:05.120 --> 00:06:12.800
Um, you know, one could talk, and I do often along, long and hard about these topics.
00:06:12.800 --> 00:06:19.120
And uh so I find this a way to start to reconceptualize contemporary politics and economics.
00:06:19.519 --> 00:06:20.160
It's brilliant.
00:06:20.160 --> 00:06:28.160
And one of the things I think is really interesting is how few people, when you go out in the world, have actually heard of commons and commoning.
00:06:28.160 --> 00:06:38.399
And there's a sense in which it's very hard for people to imagine an otherwise to capitalism, to neoliberalism, to the water they swim in that they take for granted.
00:06:38.399 --> 00:06:55.600
So I'd love you to kind of give an idea, just an overview of how successful, how widespread is this, because I see it as a kind of governance structure that's emergent and in waiting, and it's worked through a lot of stuff.
00:06:55.600 --> 00:07:06.079
It holds immense promise, it's very well established in human history, and it's just there, but not fully appreciated in public discourse.
00:07:06.480 --> 00:07:14.079
Well, I think that its invisibility, its lack of cultural legibility is not an accident.
00:07:14.079 --> 00:07:23.920
Uh, the mandarins of capitalism and economics, you know, don't want us to remember collective action as an antidote or a way to meet our needs.
00:07:23.920 --> 00:07:31.199
It wants to make us all individuals who are subordinate and dependent on capital, corporations, and so forth.
00:07:31.199 --> 00:07:38.000
So part of my self-appointed mission in life has been to try to make the commons more visible.
00:07:38.000 --> 00:08:15.920
And uh a few years ago, I did a book called The Commoners Catalog for Changemaking, based on the whole earth catalog of the 1970s, in which there were little modules of dozens and dozens of different types of commons out there, in which you have cooperatives, you have all sorts of care collaborative collaborations, you have alternative forms of money, you have uh urban commons, where people are, whether through information systems or uh taking over buildings or public spaces, are engaged in commoning.
00:08:15.920 --> 00:08:41.440
There's a whole movement of relocalization and trying to reimagine food systems that get out of the global circuits of commodity food and try to relocalize food and food traditions and more self-reliance of food through community-supported agriculture or community land trusts or the slow food movement or permaculture or agroecology.
00:08:41.440 --> 00:09:11.440
So I I see that there's a lot of commons out there that maybe don't even use the name and vocabulary, but I think there's strategic value in starting to talk that way because you start to situate yourself against capitalism or as an alternative, and you start to find uh along a horizontal plane kindred spirits who they might be involved in a different kind of resource, but they're commoners or they're commoning.
00:09:11.440 --> 00:09:21.039
So um that's sort of I I've done 10 or 11 books on the commons from different perspectives.
00:09:21.039 --> 00:09:26.480
Most recently I did uh Think Like a Commoner second edition.
00:09:26.480 --> 00:09:39.679
I had done one, this introduction to the Commons in 2014, but last year my publisher asked me to uh do an updated revision and it's significantly uh updated and revised.
00:09:39.679 --> 00:09:46.000
And I wrote it in a way that without dumbing it down, a way my mother could understand it, or a newcomer.
00:09:46.000 --> 00:09:53.200
And the point is, it's not some academic conceit or something that's hard to understand.
00:09:53.200 --> 00:09:57.279
It's really as basic as caring and sharing in some respects.
00:09:57.279 --> 00:10:13.120
In other ways, institutionally, legally, financially, it does get complicated because we're all embedded in this capitalist monster, and we need to find creative ways to protect those commons from being captured and enclosed.
00:10:13.120 --> 00:10:16.960
So that's what I try to think about a lot.
00:10:17.279 --> 00:10:31.600
So would you say then that commons are intrinsically anti-capitalist, or is there a risk as well, as so often is the case, that capitalism captures its critique and represents it as a mode of representing capitalism?
00:10:32.000 --> 00:10:33.679
Well, that's that's an excellent question.
00:10:33.679 --> 00:10:38.639
I think that commons are uh, I think they're pre-political.
00:10:38.639 --> 00:10:43.759
They're based on things people love and cherish and want to protect.
00:10:43.759 --> 00:10:48.799
Now, that becomes political when it comes into collision with capitalism.
00:10:48.799 --> 00:10:54.559
And indeed, as you say, capitalism does try to capture and control and change the language.
00:10:54.559 --> 00:11:10.240
And that there's all sorts of attempts to commons wash uh by claiming it, you know, try claiming egalitarian street cred, oh yeah, we're a commons, when in fact it's just a hierarchical centralized organization.
00:11:10.240 --> 00:11:21.200
And so, yes, that's going to happen, but my response to the co-optation of the language is seeing commons as commoning a verb.
00:11:21.200 --> 00:11:23.519
Are you engaged in commoning?
00:11:23.519 --> 00:11:25.519
Do you work with other people?
00:11:25.519 --> 00:11:28.639
Not it's not as if you're all of one mind.
00:11:28.639 --> 00:11:34.799
You have to work hard to bring yourselves into alignment and to coordinate and to resolve conflicts.
00:11:34.799 --> 00:11:42.000
But that's the process, not just claiming the word performatively by saying, Oh yeah, I common.
00:11:42.000 --> 00:11:52.799
Um, and so that's the challenge that the commons presents, but the rewards are a more stable, protected system of meeting your needs.
00:11:52.799 --> 00:11:55.519
Uh, and this is a long-term proposition.
00:11:55.519 --> 00:11:59.360
It's not going to be easy, it's not just electing the right person.
00:11:59.360 --> 00:12:12.080
Um, you know, it's not just participating with your political party, all of which I think are clueless or eager to co-opt a populist language.
00:12:12.080 --> 00:12:29.519
Uh so I see there's the Commons ultimately wants to have a longer, bigger conversation about the nation-state itself as a system of power, because a lot of this backs up to the nation-state and its deep alliance with capital.
00:12:29.519 --> 00:12:42.000
And uh being, you know, the the state takes care of governance and law, and capitalism takes care of production and money making, and they're joined at the hip in that enterprise.
00:12:42.000 --> 00:12:49.679
So, how can we reconfigure state power to serve and protect the commons and not just the investor class?
00:12:50.159 --> 00:12:56.399
So that reconfiguration possibility implies that the nation-state isn't necessarily intrinsically problematic.
00:12:56.399 --> 00:13:00.960
It's really the fusion of the nation-state with capitalist formations.
00:13:00.960 --> 00:13:04.080
Uh I don't want to go further, couldn't we?
00:13:04.399 --> 00:13:19.519
I don't want to get too doctrinaire about that, but I think that the nation-state, as a system of power, has appropriated culture, religion, identity, and declared it uh an artifact of national power.
00:13:19.519 --> 00:13:29.759
And that's where it gets so problematic because I believe that humanity has larger allegiances and aspirations than that with the nation state provides.
00:13:30.080 --> 00:13:34.480
Yeah, and possibly more variegated and situated alliances, right?
00:13:34.480 --> 00:13:41.200
Because, you know, you I kind of always think the paradigm case is kind of Africa, and I've got a very naive understanding of it.
00:13:41.200 --> 00:14:00.000
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that tribal regions were divided by Eurocentric linearities that caused all sorts of problems because there was no sensitivity to ethnic situatedness and pre-existing relational political structures in the broad sense of political.
00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:02.159
Um, and that's problematic.
00:14:02.159 --> 00:14:09.840
And let's face it, nation-state boundaries are artifices, they're constructions.
00:14:10.159 --> 00:14:10.720
Absolutely.
00:14:11.039 --> 00:14:19.840
You know, and so there is um there is a need perhaps to question the state per se whether or not we see it as intrinsically entangled with capitalist formations.
00:14:20.320 --> 00:14:31.519
Particularly, though, the state has been the partner in capitalist goal to declare the world as one world of a uniform grid for markets.
00:14:31.519 --> 00:14:39.679
And therefore, that's kind of a force that is kind of denying the inherent diversity of humankind.
00:14:39.679 --> 00:14:49.519
Uh, it wants to fit everybody into a market regime, a prop private property regime, fungible exchanges of money and value, and so forth.
00:14:49.519 --> 00:15:26.080
And so trying to declare that value and tradition and identity are inherently pluriversal, is the term, multiple multiple in diverse ways, is kind of the implicit cultural agenda of the commons to reclaim that we have different geographic identities uh because based on the landscape and the water and the traditions of that place, uh, all of which capitalism is about eradicating because it wants to just put it into one massive investment grid and global products.
00:15:26.399 --> 00:15:43.360
Uh yeah, and intrinsically linked, I think, to the flattening of colonialism itself, right, in the early days and the kind of there's some, even though you know it's obviously more diverse now, there's an intrinsic Eurocentrism under a lot of those structures.
00:15:43.360 --> 00:15:48.399
I mean, the corporation you can argue is the white man of property writ large.
00:15:48.720 --> 00:15:49.200
Absolutely.
00:15:49.440 --> 00:15:53.759
And you could argue the same about the nation-state, actually, the modern nation-state.
00:15:53.759 --> 00:16:04.799
Um, and I'm very struck by this pluriversalism, which really allows for diversity and relationality with the more than human, which is one of my passions, right?
00:16:04.799 --> 00:16:27.519
Because you've just mentioned topology, geography, locatedness, and the ways in which those inevitably have influences on how we imagine ourselves as communities, as individuals, and you know, our tribes, our families, and our gatherings of various kinds, which I'm guessing feeds a bit into bioregionalism.
00:16:28.320 --> 00:16:28.960
It does.
00:16:28.960 --> 00:17:01.120
I mean, I think that I've recently, in recent years, gotten more involved in the bioregional framing of a lot of change, because unless we can become biophysically rooted in places and be committed to them, as opposed to being cosmopolitan capitalists uh searching for market gains wherever we can, and being essentially disdainful or contemptuous of what is unique about different places in the world, we're going to be lost.
00:17:01.120 --> 00:17:17.119
And we're not, and I think one reason we have such serious ecological problems from climate on change to dozens of other uh such crises, is because we have been treating the earth as a thing, uh, not as a living entity of which we're a part.
00:17:17.119 --> 00:17:31.359
And so bioregionalism helps us get into this what I call auto shift, an ontological shift, to understand that we are relational beings, not sovereign, autonomous individuals.
00:17:31.359 --> 00:17:51.599
And once we start to get out of our modern capitalist conceit that we're sovereign individuals, self-made, and so forth, that we can begin to reconnect with each other, with past and future generations, with other living beings, uh, animals, plants, and beyond.
00:17:51.599 --> 00:17:52.960
Gaia.
00:17:52.960 --> 00:17:58.799
Um, and so that's kind of the challenge that I see the commons feeding into.
00:17:58.799 --> 00:18:04.559
But bioregionalism as a frame helps give it some operational focus.
00:18:04.559 --> 00:18:26.480
And there are, in fact, dozens of different, you know, embryonic movements around the world trying to revive the bioregional movement that started in the 1970s and 80s, which sort of has been latent, dormant for the past 40 years, thanks to the surge and now vulnerability of neoliberalism.
00:18:26.480 --> 00:18:50.000
Neoliberal capitalism from Reagan Thatcher on up to uh well, I'd say the the end of Trump, uh the first Trump administration, it's now we're start people are starting to say, yeah, neoliberal capitalism is the problem, and starting to open up a space for a broader political discussion than we've had in decades.
00:18:50.160 --> 00:18:56.240
So is really exciting um and necessary, actually.
00:18:56.240 --> 00:18:58.720
Beyond exciting, it's it's vital.
00:18:58.960 --> 00:18:59.359
Yes.
00:18:59.519 --> 00:19:04.720
Um, and it for me it comes down as well to our nature as embodied beings, right?
00:19:04.720 --> 00:19:10.640
Because we are porous, like you know, the skin is more of a conversation than a wall.
00:19:10.640 --> 00:19:19.279
Um, and we have these relationships between even our gut microbiota and the biota of the world in which we move and live.
00:19:19.279 --> 00:19:35.759
Our local regional food is grown in soils that have certain microbes, and there's more and more evidence coming out all the time about the complexity of the intimacies between our embodied lives and the worlds in which we are embedded.
00:19:35.759 --> 00:19:39.920
And I think this is a really, really interesting and hopeful development.
00:19:39.920 --> 00:19:48.960
I'd really love you to open up bioregionalism a bit more for people who really don't understand the terminology or what it really drives at.
00:19:48.960 --> 00:19:51.920
What is it that you're really talking about here?
00:19:51.920 --> 00:19:53.680
What does it boil down to?
00:19:53.680 --> 00:19:56.000
And what are the central concerns?
00:19:56.559 --> 00:20:23.759
Well, there's uh a belief among a lot of ecologists that there are natural regions without bright uh dark, without I'm sorry, without strict bright lines defining them the way political jurisdictions are defined, but rough regions in which the watershed, the type of flora and fauna, and the types of livelihoods that can be earned there are based in a bioregional way.
00:20:23.759 --> 00:20:46.000
Now it's not as if we can utterly revert to a pre-global world, but to the extent that our commerce and our identities can start to grow into a bioregional frame, we're gonna be much better situated for being resilient to disruptions of our economy and nature.
00:20:46.000 --> 00:20:57.440
And we're gonna be much more uh, I'd say, socially stable because we will have affiliations with each other and cooperations with each other.
00:20:57.440 --> 00:21:09.359
Uh the chat the challenge is how, in the midst of the existing nation-state system and international treaty organizations, we can begin to grow into these alternatives.
00:21:09.359 --> 00:21:18.160
And I see it's a long relational process, but I see a fierce energy and creativity that's being applied to it.
00:21:18.160 --> 00:21:24.880
And I see dozens of different genres of commons uh attempting to do this.
00:21:24.880 --> 00:21:34.000
And I think we're gonna be experiencing some serious shocks as the global capitalist system uh can't adapt.
00:21:34.000 --> 00:21:37.039
And it's not gonna be a linear change.
00:21:37.039 --> 00:21:43.519
I think it's gonna be like a phase shift that happens rather rapidly, as people say our survival will depend on this.
00:21:43.519 --> 00:21:46.240
It's not gonna be merely discretionary.
00:21:46.240 --> 00:21:51.359
Uh so I mean that's sort of the the big picture scenario I see.
00:21:51.359 --> 00:21:54.799
But it it will take different flavors in different regions.
00:21:54.799 --> 00:21:59.519
Some areas like Cascadia in the Pacific Northwest of the United States.
00:21:59.519 --> 00:22:08.400
Are well uh advanced in thinking about this and more mobilized because they go back um 50 years in thinking about this.
00:22:08.400 --> 00:22:20.880
Others are doing it for the first time, others have been doing it without even having a vocabulary or thinking about it because they've been maybe more insulated from the global circuits of capitalism and have not been as corrupted by it.
00:22:20.880 --> 00:22:24.160
So that's where I see this all going.
00:22:24.160 --> 00:22:32.400
And admittedly, in today's climate, people sometimes say, bioregionalism, what's that?
00:22:32.400 --> 00:22:43.920
But I think it has enormous potential for getting beyond a lot of the sterile ideological debates and starting to get us into this relational mindset that you were referring to.
00:22:44.480 --> 00:22:45.680
Yeah, absolutely.
00:22:45.680 --> 00:22:50.160
And have you got some cool examples that people can find it relatable?
00:22:50.160 --> 00:22:57.920
People who are unfamiliar with this, have you got examples of bioregional projects or communities where you know specific things are happening?
00:22:58.400 --> 00:23:29.680
Well, there's a lot of energy going into reimagining food systems so that they're local and uh trying to get different players from farmers to distributors to processors to restaurants to the food consumers themselves to start to become mutually interdependent and look to each other and to become therefore become more self-reliant and not depend upon all this imported fruit and vegetable and meat from around the globe, which of course is part of the problem.
00:23:29.680 --> 00:23:32.559
Um, so that's an inspiring example.
00:23:32.559 --> 00:24:05.839
There's a whole set of examples that go under the heading of cosmolocal production, where open source design and knowledge is shared for how to make furniture, how to make modular houses, how to make motor vehicles, how to make um well, my favorite example is an automated insulin delivery pump and smartphone app that people with diabetes created to because the medical and device industry was not creating that.
00:24:05.839 --> 00:24:17.200
But so they shared this information and built it as an open source collaborative technology, but then you can produce it locally with your own cheaper modular components.
00:24:17.200 --> 00:24:26.960
So, what I'm saying is cosmolocalism is a form of production that could take care of a lot of these things in a way that doesn't depend on the global supply chains.
00:24:26.960 --> 00:24:47.039
And you know, there's other attempts to, you know, there's a bioregional festivals that are occurring as a way to try to get the arts and culture world and ordinary people to start to have uh cultural representations of their regional uh identities and feelings.
00:24:47.039 --> 00:24:57.039
And you know, in Oregon in the US, they have uh an image called salmon nation because the salmon are an important species there.
00:24:57.039 --> 00:25:10.799
And they talk about salmon nation, and it sort of gives a cultural framing for thinking about oh, yeah, we're we're really kind of dependent upon the salmon because of this, that, and the next thing.
00:25:10.799 --> 00:25:13.440
So there's these experiments.
00:25:13.440 --> 00:25:21.039
We don't have a typology, this is not a discipline yet, but there are a lot of really robust instructive examples.
00:25:21.359 --> 00:25:25.759
I kind of love the idea of dropping a yet and never making it a discipline.
00:25:27.279 --> 00:25:33.279
Well, making it a discipline is the first step for its control and corruption, you know.
00:25:33.759 --> 00:26:08.720
Yeah, because it's what strikes me is in a sense, what's happening is there's a whole set of imaginaries for worlds beyond the limits of the current dominant one world world imaginary, which we've all soaked in for, you know, for at least 40, 50 years and earlier, of course, but neoliberalism's done enormous damage, um, taking the ceiling off inequality, producing, you know, the fundamental discrepancy between unaccountable levels of wealth and the basic needs of ordinary people.
00:26:08.720 --> 00:26:11.599
And it's a huge, huge threat to democracy.
00:26:11.599 --> 00:26:18.240
I mean, I keep hearing people like um people in the states saying billionaires should pay their fair share.
00:26:18.240 --> 00:26:31.119
And I'm like, that's great, but it's missing the point because the the distributive inequality alone is inherently destructive to democracy.
00:26:31.119 --> 00:26:44.640
But what I'm hearing in everything you're saying is this isn't an imaginary of coming together, a kind of horizontality, a kind of relationship across rather than up and down.
00:26:44.640 --> 00:26:51.279
And it's and it's intrinsically situated, it's intrinsically embedded.
00:26:51.279 --> 00:26:59.440
Um, you know, there obviously there are less embedded forms like digital forms, but even those are relationally embedded by the sound of it.
00:26:59.440 --> 00:27:02.559
So it's it's just huge, this imaginary shift.
00:27:03.039 --> 00:27:24.240
It it implies a different idea of politics itself, and one that's based on greater authenticity and less on tactical or media manipulations, uh, which centralized systems are notorious for because you capture that centralized node and you capture a lot else.
00:27:24.240 --> 00:27:40.240
When this is all distributed and diversified, it's harder to capture and it has to be based on reality principles more than these systems that are so far removed from even the idea that we're part of an earthly biological system.
00:27:40.240 --> 00:27:44.720
Uh, we we don't even think we moderns don't even think that.
00:27:44.720 --> 00:27:56.400
So we do have you you sort of alluded to this, we need we have a big challenge in unlearning what we've been acculturated to over decades, and that is at least as much a problem.
00:27:56.400 --> 00:28:06.160
It's not as if we can simply, oh, be like an indigenous person, because we have to escape modernity itself uh to get to this place, yeah.
00:28:06.240 --> 00:28:08.960
But we and we can't do it by going pre-modern.
00:28:08.960 --> 00:28:11.519
No, no, like that's not the way.
00:28:11.519 --> 00:28:21.359
We can't just romanticize and imagine some pre-ro pre-modern, like almost Luddite return to a some pristine imagined before.
00:28:21.359 --> 00:28:24.160
You know, that would be extremely destructive, I think.
00:28:24.160 --> 00:28:32.880
We have to be adaptive and future-facing while being radically present and embedded in what's really happening, what's really materially real.
00:28:33.759 --> 00:28:53.039
And I think that what is important is that we bend the structural beams of modernity enough that we can make it fair, participatory, have bottom-up creative agency again, all of which have been denied by the existing market state system.
00:28:53.039 --> 00:29:32.799
And so it's that's why I take encouragement by these seemingly spontaneous movements that are precisely trying to honor that, whether they go under the rubric of the commons, or there's a lot of adjacent movements that you could cite from the transition town movement and cooperatives and donut economics and uh, you know, the well-being economy and so forth, all of which have a piece of the puzzle in trying to reimagine the shared shared wealth that we own ourselves, and therefore we can pre-distribute the wealth instead of trying to redistribute it later.
00:29:32.799 --> 00:29:47.839
In some ways, it's about having greater upfront mutual ownership of the resources we depend on and our own infrastructures to enable common aims so that it's not a heroic aberrational thing, but something that is more normal.
00:29:48.000 --> 00:29:51.200
Um and it reimagines wealth itself, doesn't it?
00:29:51.200 --> 00:30:05.680
Because it you know, it definancializes it, not entirely, because obviously money still matters, but there are multiple modes of well-being and celebration that are not monetary, that commons also attest to.
00:30:05.680 --> 00:30:09.200
I'm thinking of seed sharing cooperatives in India, for example.
00:30:09.200 --> 00:30:25.759
And you know, I think it was Vandanashiva who was talking about the radical nature, the radical political nature of being able to grow your own food, like how much sovereignty, you know, to borrow that term, that gives you as a human being.
00:30:25.759 --> 00:30:29.839
Um, and that's a non-monetary mode of power and wealth.
00:30:30.400 --> 00:30:43.440
In the US civil rights movement, this famous activist Fannie Lou Hamer created agricultural co-op farms because it was a defense against white supremacist action against them.
00:30:43.440 --> 00:30:51.039
Because once if you could grow your own food, you could have some degree of control and autonomy in your life against that kind of behaviors.
00:30:51.039 --> 00:31:06.880
So this is where I think the vision of a different world can come in and start to grow on a better foundation than um liberal, let's just call it liberal reformism.
00:31:06.880 --> 00:31:18.880
Which I don't want to make this an either-or proposition because there are people who are doing important work and trying to tame the barbarity of the current system, and I think that needs to be applauded.
00:31:18.880 --> 00:31:28.640
But I think we have to realize the limited affordances of some of that work because it's not necessarily leading to system change or structural change.
00:31:28.960 --> 00:31:29.359
Exactly.
00:31:29.359 --> 00:31:34.240
It can just rehabilitate something by making it more bearable, which is the risk, right?
00:31:34.240 --> 00:31:35.039
Right.
00:31:35.039 --> 00:31:39.920
So you need you need, I think you need a multiplicity of approaches.
00:31:39.920 --> 00:31:42.640
And we talk about an onto shift.
00:31:42.640 --> 00:31:58.720
I suspect we need multiple onto shifts in the sense that we're looking for um epistemic multiplicity, many ways of knowing, many modes of truth telling that are not just kind of making crap up.
00:31:58.720 --> 00:32:30.160
So we're not talking about just chatting nonsense a la online influencers who talk about things they know nothing about, but we are talking about a multiplicity of perspectives that are embedded in long-lived experience, maybe from alternative rationalities of some either antiquity or worth, where there's some probity, there's some value, there's some weight, there's some resonance to them, um, rather than any one view.
00:32:30.160 --> 00:32:36.000
So if there is a one view, it's simply an invitation into a space of multiplicity.
00:32:36.000 --> 00:32:40.880
And, you know, it's like you said, you implied it's not necessarily easy.
00:32:40.880 --> 00:33:16.799
And I I'm always saying this, but I'm always struck by Donna Haraway's beautiful invitation to stay with the trouble, to stay with the frayings and the graspings and the weavings and the rubbings of birthing alternative ways of imagining alternative possible worlds or ways of worlding worlds, and and thinking about the ways in which it matters, which ideas have ideas, which thoughts think thoughts, which languages construct languages, going right down to those fundamental questions of power.
00:33:16.799 --> 00:33:36.880
Um, and it has to be, I think, fundamentally distributive, as you've said, you know, you know, kind of in a way it's ecological without wanting to romanticize ecology, in the sense that it's it's very much more like the way natural systems, particularly rhizomatic systems, work.
00:33:37.680 --> 00:33:45.359
And I agree with that, and the but that agenda is no longer going to be discretionary or nice.
00:33:45.359 --> 00:34:18.320
I think it's gonna be a survival mechanism because with the surging of AI, which is going to try to systematize everything through cognitive knowledge uh or purporatively cognitive knowledge, in some ways it's just language patterns that are plausibly uh not forms of knowledge, but nonetheless, trying to standardize our cultural knowledge base and cultural base, it's going to be a radical act to assert these alternative epistemologies and to stick with them as serious things.
00:34:18.320 --> 00:34:22.559
So um turbulence ahead.
00:34:22.960 --> 00:34:29.039
Absolutely, and it strikes me as well that AI is in itself potentially another mode of enclosure.
00:34:29.360 --> 00:34:30.239
Absolutely, it is.
00:34:30.719 --> 00:34:45.039
You know, we're already looking at you know commons like wiki being raided by AI to generate its outputs, which make a very few people very rich at the cost of the rest.
00:34:45.519 --> 00:35:03.679
It's like a a uh commercial simulacrum of reality, the way genetically modified seeds are kind of simulating ecologically uh originated seeds, but only because they can get their commercial proprietary hooks into them.
00:35:03.679 --> 00:35:14.159
And AI is sort of trying to be the overlord form of knowledge uh curation that you're gonna have to pay the piper every time you participate in that culture.
00:35:14.159 --> 00:35:20.400
It's like fiendishly uh ingenious and going to they aspire to be ubiquitous.
00:35:20.400 --> 00:35:27.920
Whether it can have enough stability to not be volatile and catastrophic, we still don't know.
00:35:28.239 --> 00:35:28.800
We don't know.
00:35:28.800 --> 00:35:37.360
And it would be interesting to see, wouldn't it, to imagine ways in which it could externalize its intern, you know, internalize its externalities.
00:35:37.360 --> 00:35:40.400
So at the moment, you data centers use of water.
00:35:40.400 --> 00:35:45.440
Is there a way of actually making them sustainably ecologically responsible?
00:35:45.440 --> 00:35:54.800
And then is there a way of actually AI itself being democratized or commonized in some future alternative configuration?
00:35:54.800 --> 00:35:59.039
Because one thing's for clear is for sure, it's not going anywhere.
00:35:59.039 --> 00:36:04.000
And so we have to kind of think about how then do we reimagine it?
00:36:04.000 --> 00:36:14.320
How then do we bring it into these other imaginaries and imagine different ways of relating to it as an emergent structure of social reality?
00:36:14.960 --> 00:36:25.199
Uh, to the extent that AI is kind of this distilled essence of the political economic reality of capitalism, that's it's a major task to get to that because it is.
00:36:25.199 --> 00:36:41.440
They own the property rights, they have the big database data sets that the rest of us don't, and shifting those so that are accessible and usable in a popular, diversified way, that's a tall order tantement to toppling capitalism.
00:36:41.760 --> 00:36:42.480
Yeah, it is.
00:36:42.480 --> 00:36:45.679
And I wonder if that's actually where we have to go in the end.
00:36:45.679 --> 00:36:52.480
You know, there I I mean, Thatcher was always famous for saying there is no alternative to neoliberalism.
00:36:52.480 --> 00:37:15.280
And I think we've got to the point where there is no alternative to actually overthrowing neoliber liberalism and actually capitalism itself, and moving into other forms of political formation that are much more commons-based or commons-like, you know, that such as the imagination of the human species that we don't actually know yet what alternative forms could emerge.
00:37:15.679 --> 00:37:23.440
Well, that's why I sort of think it's I feel very strongly of the need to develop a coherent.
00:37:23.440 --> 00:37:25.440
Well, there's two things that come to mind.
00:37:25.440 --> 00:37:40.000
Coherent islands of co islands of coherence is the phrase that the Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prijgoni uh asserted, that islands of coherence can change the dynamics of the entire system in ways that are not anticipated.
00:37:40.000 --> 00:37:40.960
And that's one.
00:37:40.960 --> 00:37:51.840
And two, Vaclav Havel, as a cultural dissident in the 70s, was asked, How do you deal with a totalizing system that you can't rationally persuade or have civic action against?
00:37:51.840 --> 00:38:02.320
And he said, you develop a parallel polis of horizontal relationships that prefigure the world you want, that allow you to speak the truth and wholesome values.
00:38:02.320 --> 00:38:24.159
And I see that as a kind of a rough metaphor for how we need to develop this parallel polis of diverse players of the sort I've mentioned in the past uh half hour to begin to identify with each other and coordinate with each other and to become a different moral center of gravity.
00:38:24.480 --> 00:38:25.360
Yeah, totally.
00:38:25.360 --> 00:38:37.920
And I I love the idea of there of the prefigurative, because then you're getting away from oppositionalism, which by definition keeps you stuck on the other side of a kind of binary and locked in a particular energy.
00:38:37.920 --> 00:38:45.840
None of which, of course, suggests that there isn't a need for critical awareness and critique, because there always is, including critique of our new formations.
00:38:45.840 --> 00:38:55.280
We have to always be able to have that reflexive capacity to look honestly at what we're doing and say, okay, how is power falling through this now?
00:38:55.280 --> 00:39:08.880
Is there, you know, even in a commons formation, we know there are subtle forms of domination that humans can operate, you know, against each other within even the most idealized community formation.
00:39:08.880 --> 00:39:14.079
So that critical reflexive kind of question of power never goes away.
00:39:14.079 --> 00:39:25.440
But the need to move into an imagination that is moves beyond oppositionalism, moves beyond the limits of the present imaginary to prefigure possible worlds otherwise.
00:39:25.440 --> 00:39:27.679
And this idea of horizontality.
00:39:27.679 --> 00:39:43.760
I just had a conversation with my friend Andreas Philippopoulos Mihelopoulos in this same series where he's written a book about hydro justice, and he's very move much moving towards a celebration of horizontality against verticality.
00:39:43.760 --> 00:40:06.159
He's not saying get rid of verticality entirely, but recognize its limits and really horizontality and water as a figuration, an onto figuration, we could say, for alternatives in a way is even more radical than rhizomatic thinking because rhizomes move along particular channels, water seeps, it just finds a way.
00:40:06.159 --> 00:40:14.239
Um, and it reminds me in this context, our conversation of William Connolly's idea of the politics of swarming.
00:40:14.239 --> 00:40:19.039
There's something about the need to overflow, to flow past the limits, right?
00:40:19.039 --> 00:40:22.320
To move beyond the banks of the present.
00:40:22.320 --> 00:40:26.480
Um, so I love that notion of a prefiguration.
00:40:26.960 --> 00:40:38.320
And I think it's going to have to sort itself out as the brittle, imploding existing hierarchical systems no longer function well enough.
00:40:38.320 --> 00:40:57.039
And people will say, Oh, we do need to swarm, we do need to comment, we knew, and I think there'll be a big uh testing out and of what will what can go the distance, what has the hardiness, what has the creative uh degree of empowerment, and so and so forth.
00:40:57.039 --> 00:41:10.960
But uh, you know, maybe that's a little further down the road when the uh unsustainability, the current systems become more obvious or acknowledged.
00:41:10.960 --> 00:41:26.719
I think people, especially and even in power, say, oh, we've got some problems here, but they're not willing to use uh Prime Minister Kearney's phrase, take the sign out of the window from the the Vakrov-Havel speech.
00:41:26.719 --> 00:41:38.719
Yes, in which they're still paying uh saying the shibboleth, still mouthing the empty phrases, as opposed to saying we need to get down and dirty and talk real about this.
00:41:39.039 --> 00:41:49.199
Yeah, which is where you I kind of keep hoping for this commons generativity to bubble up into political awareness, general political awareness.
00:41:49.199 --> 00:41:55.519
Because as I said, you know, when you when you talk to people, just ordinary people about politics, they don't see an alternative.
00:41:55.519 --> 00:41:59.360
And that's what generates a sense of hopelessness.
00:41:59.360 --> 00:42:16.159
Um having said that, I'm there's something very exciting happening in the United Kingdom at the moment with the rise of the Green Party, which is genuinely interested in alternatives and you know does engage with policy positions which are not business as usual.
00:42:16.480 --> 00:42:24.320
But that my question would be: can they make the Anto shift, or will they be like the German Green Party that got sucked into the standard system?
00:42:24.320 --> 00:42:34.639
Um can they find ways to reimagine state power and how it functions as an enabling force as opposed to a centralized controlling force?
00:42:34.960 --> 00:42:37.119
Yeah, that's a really interesting question.
00:42:37.119 --> 00:42:39.519
I kind of hope that they can.
00:42:39.519 --> 00:42:51.440
I think the value system that they're generate generated by, they're the the value system that uplifts the energies, could move very much in that direction.
00:42:51.440 --> 00:42:55.360
It's um, I mean, Zach Polanski talks about eco-populism.
00:42:55.360 --> 00:42:57.920
It's I don't think it's socialism as usual.
00:42:57.920 --> 00:43:06.639
I think it is something more imaginative and certainly something more generative in the sense of moving towards the sensibilities of ordinary people.
00:43:06.639 --> 00:43:11.039
I mean, one of the latest developments was the election of a woman called Hannah Spencer.
00:43:11.039 --> 00:43:18.239
I don't know if you follow this, but she's a plumber and plasterer from Manchester, and she's kind of a very ordinary person.
00:43:18.239 --> 00:43:20.960
That's how she presents, and she's in parliament.
00:43:20.960 --> 00:43:24.480
And the basic message is we need more ordinary people in parliament.
00:43:24.480 --> 00:43:29.280
There's something incredibly refreshing about even the simplicity of that.
00:43:29.280 --> 00:43:48.079
But once you're in government, then you are constricted by all the pre-existing fabrics of this system, its institutional gravity, its intensifications of um habit, and all the kind of architectural memory of the system.
00:43:48.079 --> 00:43:59.760
So that becomes quite an interesting point of testing because it's so much easier to be a voice on the edge offering critique and prefiguration, even it's much harder to operationalize.
00:43:59.760 --> 00:44:06.000
Once you're within the structures that pre-exist, your capacity to change it.
00:44:06.639 --> 00:44:16.079
There's a fantastic book by a former um uh well, a Chilean former journalist who became a constitutional scholar.
00:44:16.079 --> 00:44:46.719
She wrote a book about towards an anti-oligarchal uh constitution, talking about uh the failure of constitutions to have sit have uh different structural vehicles for popular sentiment to be expressed as opposed to representative, uh means that the system is already entropic and not going to last because it needs to renew itself from that bottom-up participation by ordinary people.
00:44:46.719 --> 00:45:04.400
And so we need structural means, whether they're citizen assemblies or sortition uh in represent being represented in legislatures, to have ordinary people sentiments, she calls it plebeian constitutionalism, uh, represented.
00:45:04.400 --> 00:45:12.239
And I find that a fascinating and deep insight for the dilemma of contemporary capitalist democracies.
00:45:12.559 --> 00:45:22.639
Yeah, and it raises questions about what representation even means, you know, and and I mean, I'm always exercised there for as a former legal scholar.
00:45:22.639 --> 00:45:46.320
This always jumps into my mind is the the kind of need to move beyond the merely human when we start talking about representationalism, to start thinking about how do we, you know, obviously we can never escape our human perspective, but we do have means of understanding more than human realities through science, through a kind of prosthetic of different epistemological means.
00:45:46.320 --> 00:45:52.480
They're limited, but how do we start thinking beyond simply anthropocentrism?
00:45:52.960 --> 00:46:06.400
How do we begin to respect, let's just use the word personhood of other living beings and their own ontological aspirations and needs?
00:46:06.400 --> 00:46:10.400
Uh and that's not a fanciful question, that's an urgent question.
00:46:10.880 --> 00:46:13.039
Extremely urgent question, absolutely.
00:46:13.039 --> 00:46:20.559
And you know, not an odd question for lawyers, because after all, corporations are persons, the Taj Mahal is a legal person.
00:46:20.559 --> 00:46:26.000
I mean, you know, it's not an odd thing to generate persons of multiple kinds.
00:46:26.000 --> 00:46:42.480
Um, and we have been very bad, actually, at thinking about the kind of personhood of living lively more than human or non-human beings, as opposed to persons that we generate to control through property or capital.
00:46:42.800 --> 00:46:59.440
And the only kicker I would put to that is I've read a fascinating book called The Problem with Personhood, yeah, about how legal personhood is starting to essentially vampire-like, extract all these living persons into Western jurisprudential notions of a person.
00:46:59.440 --> 00:47:00.400
Yes, it does.
00:47:00.400 --> 00:47:07.280
In a way that degrades this experience of the presence of other living beings.
00:47:07.599 --> 00:47:08.079
Absolutely.
00:47:08.079 --> 00:47:12.079
And even the notion of personateness could be problematized.
00:47:12.320 --> 00:47:13.360
Yes, yes.
00:47:14.320 --> 00:47:15.440
What does its import?
00:47:16.000 --> 00:47:21.199
Well, I mean, to the extent that the microbiome makes up such a vast amount of ourselves.
00:47:21.199 --> 00:47:23.039
What is the self, after all?
00:47:23.440 --> 00:47:24.719
Yes, exactly.
00:47:24.719 --> 00:47:25.679
Exactly.
00:47:26.480 --> 00:47:34.079
In my mind from uh Francisco Varella, the dissident theoretical biologist, he said the self doesn't exist.
00:47:34.079 --> 00:47:37.199
We're part of a meshwork of selfless selves.
00:47:37.199 --> 00:47:37.920
Exactly.
00:47:37.920 --> 00:47:39.519
Very Buddhist idea.
00:47:39.840 --> 00:47:40.639
It is, exactly.
00:47:40.639 --> 00:48:13.760
And it and it really swings back to this whole question of you know, the whole prefigurative idea of commoning demands actually an evolution in the capacity of the human being to recognize that the things we take so seriously about a sense of self need to be released in order that we can be really comfortable with complexity, really comfortable with the more than human, the flux and the flow, the it in the eye, um, the multiplicity that we in fact are.
00:48:13.760 --> 00:48:23.039
Um and when we take that much, much more seriously, in my view, we tend to flourish because we're not rigid, we're not constricted, we're not locked down.
00:48:23.039 --> 00:48:32.880
And how I read the politics at the present day, the the major inflection point that we're at between so-called left and so-called right.
00:48:32.880 --> 00:48:54.159
There's a tendency, I think, between there's a tension between a kind of contraction into this is what we've always been, we have to go back, we've made a mistake, it's all got too crazy, you know, we've got to re-establish certain forms of power and cling on to them.
00:48:54.159 --> 00:48:59.679
And a movement towards, no, let's expand, let's change, let's become more fluid.
00:48:59.679 --> 00:49:04.960
And it's the fluidity that some people find so threatening at the moment.
00:49:05.599 --> 00:49:10.159
I I think that is a serious challenge because it's paradoxical.
00:49:10.159 --> 00:49:20.800
People do want and need security in their life, and surrendering to the flow is radically disorienting and troubling.
00:49:20.960 --> 00:49:25.679
Uh, and yet these and yet weirdly grounding.
00:49:26.000 --> 00:49:31.679
These rigid brittle structures we have are no longer properly grounded in let's just call it reality.
00:49:31.840 --> 00:49:32.320
Yeah.
00:49:32.559 --> 00:49:35.440
Meaning the reality of of living systems.
00:49:35.440 --> 00:49:39.519
So uh this is uh maybe that's kind of sort of a deep civilizational paradox.
00:49:39.519 --> 00:49:43.920
We have to is civilization compatible with living systems, yeah.
00:49:44.480 --> 00:49:48.239
Certainly civilization as it's being conceived as civilized.
00:49:48.480 --> 00:49:48.960
Exactly.
00:49:49.039 --> 00:49:50.000
Yeah, exactly.
00:49:50.000 --> 00:49:52.159
There's some, yeah, there's a huge invitation here.
00:49:52.159 --> 00:49:53.519
It's very exciting.
00:49:53.519 --> 00:49:55.599
Um, David, thank you so much.
00:49:55.599 --> 00:49:57.519
I've really enjoyed speaking to you.
00:49:57.519 --> 00:49:58.559
I always do.
00:49:58.960 --> 00:50:05.440
Well, I've enjoyed reconnecting with you and uh thank you for eliciting some ideas I didn't even know I had.
00:50:06.320 --> 00:50:08.239
Well, thank you for sharing them.
00:50:08.239 --> 00:50:10.559
I'm just gonna stop the recording.
