The commons as a common paradigm for social movements and beyond

28 January 2010
Silke Helfrich

World Social Forum: 10 years after: Elements of a new agenda

The commons as a common paradigm for social movements and beyond (version 1.0)

We can only promote the commons as a new narrative for the 21st century if they are identified as a common denominator by different social movements and schools of thought. In my point of view, enforcing the commons would be not only possible, but strategically intelligent. Here are 15 reasons why:

1. The commons are everywhere. They determine our quality of life in great many ways. They are present (even though often invisible) in the social, natural, cultural and digital sphere. Think about the things we use to learn (read and write), the things we use to move (land, air and sea), the things we use to communicate (language, music and code), the things we use to feed and heal (land, water, medicine) or the things our reproduction depends on (genes, social life). The commons is about how we share and use all these things. They are a vivid way of reproduction of our social relations – at any time. Therefore, they are better described with a verb (commoning) instead of a noun (commons). The commons are a special kind of practice of use and production of knowledge and material goods, where use value is privileged over exchange value. Commoning is a practice which allows us to take our lives in our own hands, and to protect and widen what is common to us instead of witnessing its enclosure and privatization. Commoners’ rights are independent from formal convention and positive law. We just have them without having to ask anybody for permission, and we share them with others. The commons offer a different kind of freedom than the market. So the good news is: when we focus on the commons, we focus on how to shift things from the market sphere to the commons sphere, we focus on how to shift authority and responsibility from state bureaucracies to the many possibilities to „govern the commons“ by their users, and we focus on many issues and ressources – as 75% percent of the worlds biomass – which are not yet commodified. This is encouraging.
2. The commons bridge sectors and communities, it offers a frame for the convergence and consolidation of movements. The issues we have to deal with have gotten overly complex. In order to reduce complexity, we have fragmented what belongs together. In the public political debate, there is a division into different realms of knowledge and authority. There are those who discuss issues related to natural resources („the ecos“) and those who discuss cultural & digital issues („the technos“). The result are (overly) specialized communities for each of the hundreds of problems we are confronted with and many missing links. For the very diversity of the commons, this fragmentation will continue to a certain extent, but it also contributes to a loss of our common ability to keep track of the ongoing economic, political and technological processus and changes. This diminishes our capacity to react to theses changes and to carefully forward coherent alternative proposals. The commons can unify disparate social change movements, even those that have profoundly different dynamics, because they permit us to focus on what all common pool resources and all commoners have in common and not what separates them. Water is finite, knowledge is not. Atmosphere is global, a park is not. Ideas grow, when we share them, land does not. But all are common pool resources! Therefore none of them can be exclusive property of only one person. All are linked to a community. All are governed best if the rules and normes are self-determined or considered highly legitimate by the people how have to rely on those resources.
3. The commons recasts the ownership debate beyond the (sometimes fruitless) framing of public versus private. The claim for public ownership remains important, but have nation states really served as conscientious trustees of the commons? No. Do they protect traditional knowledge, forests, water and biodiversity? Not everywhere. There is much more than „public“ and „private“. A common pool resource can be possessed for short term use (to reproduce our livelihoods), but we cannot do with it what we want. It is important to remember that the concept of possession for use is very different to the dominating conventional property. Possession doesn’t allow for alienation. Property does. And property allows for abuse and commodification, maximum monetization and the „externalization“ of costs onto the commons – an ongoing process at the end of which all of us are worse off. Even the richer among us who are spurred to flee to gated communities.
4. The commons perspective is not a digital way of thinking. Its mode is not binary, 0 – 1, either – or. Nor does it focus on bottom lines like a single number of „success“. Our search is for solutions beyond opposite poles and beyond numerical metrics of „success“. It’s not simply private versus public, neither right versus left, cooperation versus competition, „invisible hand“ of the market versus plan of the State, pro technology versus anti technology. From a commons perspective the focus is on the forgotten third element. It deepens our understanding about the commonly owned and the universal principles which work for people and protect their common pool resources. In the commons sector we privilege learning more about cooperation than about competition. The commons enhances self-determined rules and commonly developed & controlled open technologies instead of proprietary technologies which tend to concentrate power within elites and enable them to control us.
5. Talking about the commons means focussing on diversity. In the words of ex Governor Olívio Dutra (Rio Grande do Sul) during the ‘WSF 10 years later’: „it enables unity within plurality and diversity“. The default but not defensive position is: „one world in which many worlds fit“. Doubtlessly, one of the strengths of this approach lies in the idea that there are no simplistic solutions, no institutional patterns, no „one size fits all” panacea, only universal principles such as reciprocity, cooperation, transparency, respect for diversity and others. Each community has to determine appropriate rules for how to access, use and control a common pool resource system based on such principles. This is complex – as the relationship between nature and society is – especially when we talk about global commons. There, the “community” is the whole mankind, which refers as to the very necessity of a new multilateralism based on a commons approach.
6. Focussing the commons brings three big C into a new balance: Cooperation, Command and Competition. There is no cooperation without competition and vice-versa, but in a commons based society the recognition is gained by those who perform best in cooperation and not in competition. The slogan is: Out-cooperate instead of out-compete. The specific rules for cooperation in a commons system vary from setting to setting. Nobody can command them from above. From commons research and practice we learn, that all over the world many commons governance systems are self-regulating, that means: they are creating their own monitoring systems. Or they are self-regulating and coordinate at different institutional levels. As far as „command“ is concerned: Nobel Price laureate Elinor Ostrom advises: „It is better to induce cooperation with institutional arrangements fitted to local ecosystems than to try to command from afar.“ At the same time „the systems from above“ – governments, law, international bodies – can be critically important in empowering and facilitating the commons. But for doing this, they need a commons perspective inscribed into their logics and polity architecture as well.
7. The commons does not separate the ecological from the social dimension as a Green New Deal focus does. To a certain extend, it may be helpful to make the “economic value” of natural resources visible and it is certainly necessary to internalizes ecological costs of production into the whole production process. But it is not enough. Such a focus does not adres the social dimension of the problem, it tends to deepen the market biased structures, linking the solutions with access to money. So who has, can afford the cost-internalization. Who has not, is worse off. Instead: the ecological and the social dimension find a common explanation in the commons. There is no such thing as a solution based on a commons perspective where those who haven’t are worse off.
8. The commons concept integrates different world views: there are attractors for socialist thinking (e. g. the common possession), for anarchists (the self-organisational driven approach), for conservative thinking (which values the protection of the creation), obviously for communitarian and cosmopolitan ideas (integral, diversity driven approach) and even for liberals (distance to state accountability, respect for individual interests and motivations in joining a community or a project). But it is quite clear that the commons cannot be a single political party programme. That is its strength, and that is why mainstream political players so often misunderstand the commons or even try to co-opt the commons. If we care for a coherent commons discourse (see 9), they won’t succeed.
9. The benchmark for the integration of different political ideas within a commons paradigm is clear and threefold: (a) sustainable and respectful use of resources (social, natural, and cultural incl. digital), that means: no overuse and no under-use of common pool resources. (b) Equitable sharing of common pool resources as well as participation in all decision making processes about access, use and control of those resources and (c) the free development of creativity and individuality of people without sacrificing the collective interest.
10. The commons don’t have one, but many centres. Their governance structures are decentralized and varied as well. In other words: it is characteristic to the commons to be polycentric, which stands for a deeply democratizing approach both politically (principles of decentralization, subsidiarity and sovereignty of commoners and commoners rule making) and economically (the „commons mode of production“ point makes us less dependent on money and market).
11. The commons strengthens an important core belief about human beings and behaviour. We are not only, not even mainly the „homo oeconomicus“ they made us believe we are. We are much more than selfish creatures looking for our own interest. We need and enjoy being embedded into a social web. “The commons are the web of life”, says Vandana Shiva. We enjoy to contribute, care and share. The commons strengthens the confidence in the creative potential of people and in the idea of inter-relationality, which means: “I need the others and the others need me.” They honour our freedom to contribute and share. This is a different kind of freedom than the market is based on. The more we contribute, more things we have access to. But note: it is not simply „access to everything for free“.
12. The commons offers analyzing tools that arise from categories different to those of capitalism, therefore the concept helps to „decolonize our thinking“. (Grzybowski) Commoners redefine „efficiency“. They ask how to „efficiently“ cooperate and how to encourage and enable people to do so? They claim for (short term) usage rights to reproduce their livelihoods instead of limitless property. They honour traditional ways to protect the commons as well as traditional knowledge systems. In short: the commons shed new light on many old political and legal regulatory processes. It makes a big difference whether I see the environment as a commons or as a commodity to trade with. It makes a difference whether water is understood as a commons, that means closely linked to the communities needs, or not. Or take seeds; conceive seed-diversity as a commons, means: harvesting self-determination and food-security. If society would recognize regional diversity of seeds as a commons, the State would put all available resources into independent, organic seed breeding and in protecting small farmers to continue their traditional way of seed-development instead of wasting taxpayers money for genetic manipulation and seed engineering.
13. In the commons sector, there is a great diversity and quantity of actors. Over the past several years, international interest in the commons paradigm has quickened. Several organizations and commoners now have significant transnational constituencies (Creative Commons, Wikipedia, Free Software and Free Culture Movement, sharing platforms, the anti-mining organizations, the alliances working for a Bem-Viver approach, the worldwide movements for sustainable agriculture, the Water Commons, community gardening, citizen communication and information projects and many others). Actually, it is a spontaneous, explosive growth of diverse commons initiatives. Since Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Price in Economics (October 2009) many Universities have rediscovered the academic interest in the commons.
14. The commons is an alternative mode of production. The problems we are confronted with are not problems of resource-availability. They are problems that arise from the current mode of production. Fortunately, in some areas, we are witnessing a shift from the capitalist mode of production (based on property, command, value exchange via money, resources and labour exploitation, dependent on growth and striving for profit) into a commons mode of production (based on possession, contribution, sharing, self interest and initiative, where the GDP is a negligible indicator and the aim is a „good life“ < bem viver). Many “Common Based Peer Production” projects are developing successfully. This is especially true for the production of knowledge (Wikipedia, Free Software, Open Design). But there is a thrilling discussion going on about how principles of commons based peer production can be transferred to the production of what we eat, wear and move with, at least to a certain extent. I believe that this is possible. Firstly because knowledge makes up the lion’s share of each kind of production. All goods are latent knowledge products. There is no car production or eggproduction without a concept and a design behind (which make the lion’s share of its „market value“). Secondly because there are many kinds of commons sectors (care economy, solidarity economy) which have not been commodified yet and where commons values and rules are deeply rooted. Those sectors are evidence that every day many of the things we need to live are produced outside the market.
15. The commons discourse is a discourse about cultural change. It is not a mere technological or institutional approach. Instead, it offers a new frame for political and personal thinking and acting.

Why now? Because the moment is ripe for the commons.

1. Given the historical moment of change, the commons are currently being rediscovered in many contexts. Market and state (alone) have failed both in the protection of common pool resources and in satisfying peoples needs. Actually, free market fundamentalism that now prevails is under siege. Its system of economic analysis, public policies and worldview is losing its explanatory value, not to mention public support. More and more people realize that it is not for the market that we enjoy biodiversity, cultural diversity and social networks!
2. New technologies enable new forms of cooperation and the decentralized production of what up to now have been monopolized core technologies of the industrial age. Today, we can relocate even energy or electricity production into the social commons (citizen solar power stations, home-power stations). We can decide which are useful news and information for the community and reproduce them ourselves with „the biggest copy machine“ that ever existed: the internet. The ongoing major revolution in production allows for a change of rules. This is a major threat for monopolies.
3. The ongoing processes put the individual in a position to engage in a wider context. A modern commons perspective is not headed „back to the past“. The perspective is not one of mere re-localization, but the horizon is: local, decentralized and horizontal cooperation in distributed networks, so that people can self-enable to create things together, available for them and others – if they want. The aim is to widen the commons sector and commons based production as far as possible and lesser depend on the market. This is only possible, if the new mode of production is able to solve even complex problems, if it is able to „peer-produces“ artifacts even large companies would have difficulties to prepare for logistically, financially and conceptually. And it is! Just think about Wikipedia or an open source car. Maybe we would have developed VIPs (vehicles for individual transportation) based 100 % on recyclable materials, which consume only a litre/100km if corporations would not have enclosed technologies and controlled the market. In a world where a commons-mode-of-production is general, there is no more centre and periphery.
4. There are new legal forms to protect collective use rights and free and/or equitable access to the commons: the General Public License (GPL), ShareAlike licenses, ownership models for natural resources with an built-in mechanism to protect for speculation and avoid over-exploitation, stakeholder trusts on single common pool resources, the acequia water management systems in Mexico or the Johads water management systems in India or the Allemansrätten (rights of each person) in countries of Northern Europe. Those are powerful tools we have to learn more about and develop further. It is an area where we need a great deal of creative legal thinking and innovation, and we need respect for the great variety of formal and informal rules to protect the commons worldwide.
5. Last but not least: once you put your nose into the commons, you discover astonishing new things. You connect with hundreds of dynamic communities. You have unexpected insights, you learn about encouraging projects and ideas and you multiply your networks. It’s energizing. Did you know, that there is an OpenCola project? Or that the biggest lake in New Zealand, Lake Taupo, is full of trout? In the very touristic Taupo region, there is much „pressure on the ressource“, but the trout population continues enjoying the lake because the New Zealanders follow a simple rule: Fish what you need to eat (for doing so, you get a fishing permit from local authorities), but don’t sell. So, you won’t find any trout on the menues of the hundreds of restaurants in the region. Remember: The commons are not for sale. Or did you know something about open source biology and participatory medicine? Have you heard about the countless local seed banks – especially in the south – and the sheer incredible treasures they care for us? Do you know where the growing international open-access scholarly publishing movement is at in its effort to make sure that we will have free access to what has been publicly funded – knowledge production. Are you aware of the intercultural and the community gardens movement or of the commons regimes used by lobstermen in Maine/USA to prevent over-fishing of lobster? And what to think about the crisis commons, where hundreds of volunteers contribute their expertise and collect information using modern information technologies in support of disaster relief for post-earthquake Haiti?

The commons are something that brings enthusiasm back into political debates. Young people are all ears when they learn about peer-to-peer-production, because that’s what they do. The „ecos“ are all ears when they learn about the copyleft principle which enables the viral reproduction of software and content. They learn that „this complicated license stuff“ is to defend our freedom for access to knowledge and cultural techniques. That is precisely what they claim for in their field. The „technos“ get motivated to use their amazing abilities for helping to manage complex natural ressource systems. In other words: The commons widen the horizon, they bring a fresh breeze of undogmatic and dynamic collective thinking and practicing along.

The commons are a powerful, self-enabling and self-empowering concept to constantly recreate a dignified life. It is what we need to build a diverse and irresistible movement based on a coherent political and conceptual thinking.

Porto Alegre (RGS), January 2010
http://commonsblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/the-commons-as-a-common-paradigm-for-social-movements-and-beyond/

Foundation for Ecological Security-Infochange Reporting Fellowships 2010

The Foundation for Ecological Security and www.infochangeindia.org invite applications to a special round of fellowships to research and report on the subject of Common Property Resources (CPR).

Common property resources include forests, grazing lands, rivers, groundwater, irrigation systems, tanks, pastures, inland fisheries and coastal fishing, as well as traditional knowledge and seed/genetic resources.

In a world that is moving towards the privatisation of natural resources, and where common lands are erroneously viewed as “wastelands” and diverted for industry or agribusiness, it is important to underline the significant role of CPRs in ensuring food security and cushioning the livelihoods of the rural poor, dalits, tribals and other marginalised sections of society. In Indian villages, the commons provide food, fodder and timber to farming systems, animal husbandry, resource conservation, and recharge of groundwater. The poor derive upto 54% of their income from commons.

We are looking for proposals that explore the importance of CPR, issues related to control, management and governance of the commons, access to CPR, especially for the socially excluded, decentralisation and collective action around the commons, the impact of public policy, etc.

Five fellowships on CPR are being offered. Each fellowship must result in a series of five or more original articles (with accompanying photographs) on the proposed subject of research, totalling 7,500 words or more. The articles must be readable, written in a journalistic and not academic style, combining perspective and analysis with reportage and human interest stories and, when appropriate, views and information from experts. All content must be submitted in English.

All content will be uploaded on www.infochangeindia.org and used in advocacy and other material by FES and CCDS. All content submitted under these fellowships will be under the Creative Commons Licence and may be submitted for publication/dissemination elsewhere after upload on www.infochangeindia.org, with credit to FES and infochangeindia.org as the supporting institutions and the website where the material first appeared.

Duration

Applications to the fellowship must be received before February 18, 2009. The results will be announced by mid-March. Fellows are expected to complete their work in April-May, and submit all content by June 5, 2010.

Eligibility

The fellowship is open to independent journalists and researchers living in India only. Working journalists may also apply, provided their organisations endorse their application and allow them time off for this fellowship if selected.

Last date for submission of applications

All applications must be received by February 18, 2010.

Funding support

These fellowships carry a grant amount of Rs 50,000. 50% of this amount will be disbursed on selection, to fund travel and research expenses. The balance will be released on successful completion of the project, and submission and acceptance of stories. Infochangeindia reserves the right to ask for revisions in articles submitted until its standards for upload are met.

Grants will be withdrawn and the advance refunded by the fellow if the fellow fails to complete and submit her/his project on deadline or if the quality of the work submitted is not acceptable. The decision of the editorial board on the quality of submissions will be final.

Application procedure

All applications must be accompanied by

1. A detailed proposal (not exceeding 1,000 words) clearly stating the aspect of CPR that is proposed for research, the applicant’s perspective on this subject, and expected output in terms of X number of articles etc.
2. A travel plan, detailing the travel likely to be undertaken for the research, with an estimated budget.
3. CV of the applicant.
4. Three samples of published work. If any of these are in regional languages, they must be accompanied by a summary of their contents in English.
5. Working journalists submitting applications must enclose a letter from their editor stating that they endorse the application and will allow the fellow time off for the research if selected.
6. One letter of recommendation from a writer/editor/academician or other appropriate referee endorsing the applicant’s interest/expertise in the chosen subject of research and the candidate’s ability to successfully complete the project.

Address to send applications to

Applications may be addressed to

FES-Infochange Media Fellowships 2010

Centre for Communication and Development Studies (CCDS)

301, Kanchanjunga Building, Kanchan Gully

Off Law College Road, Pune 411 004

Telephone: 020-26852845/25457371

Applications may also be sent by email to mediafellowships@infochangeindia.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . Please ensure that all scanned material is clearly legible and all attachments are zipped into a single file.

About FES and www.infochangeindia.org

These fellowships are part of a series of initiatives designed to build awareness and influence public policy on the management of common property resources.

Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) has been assisting the management and governance of Common Property Land Resources since 1986, working with 1,500 village institutions that manage and govern commons in diverse ecosystems across six states in India. FES will be organising the 13th Biennial International Conference in India in 2011 on the theme of Sustaining Commons, Sustaining Our Future, in collaboration with the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASC). Find out more about FES at www.fes.org.in

www.infochangeindia.org (managed by the Centre for Communication and Development Studies) is India’s leading online resource base on social justice and development issues.

Defining the Commons

Dear All,

This is a piece from http://trustcurrency.blogspot.com/2010/01/defining-commons.html which I am attaching. Its an interesting way of describing commons and the characteristics!

Subrat

Defining the Commons

This the script of a talk delivered by Silke Helfricht at the World Commons Forum on September 29 in Salzburg, Austria.
Reposted from Shareable.net

1. When we talk about the commons, what are we talking about?

A ship is cruising from port to port. On the upper deck there are a few deck-chairs, three times less than the number of passengers. During the first cruising days the chairs changed continually their "owners." As soon as someone got up, a deck-chair was regarded as being free; bath-towels or other occupation-symbols were not recognized. This was an appropriate rule for that special situation. It simply did work, because it was simple: Use was free, but short-term!

This takes us directly to one of the principles of a commons based economy and society: Use? Yes! Abuse? No!

This way, the deck-chairs – even though limited – were "not short in supply."


Later, after leaving a port in which new passengers came on board, that order collapsed. The newcomers had occupied the chairs and claimed their permanent possession. So, the majority of the other passengers remained without any opportunity to relax on deck.

The result: Scarcity reigns, conflicts develop, and most of the guests on board are worse off than before. (Based on H. Popitz, Phänomene der Macht.)

What can learn several things from that story. First of all, the commons are shared prosperity; or, as Wolfgang Sachs puts it: When we talk about the commons, we talk about "a hidden secret of our prosperity."

This is a strong but simple message. "The commons are the web of life," says Vandana Shiva. Actually, the commons are the web of life in it’s natural, social, cultural, and digital sphere. When we talk about commons we talk about quality of life, about our future, and the future of our children.

The problem is, that commons are everywhere, but they are often invisible to us. And they may get lost and consequently forgotten.

They get lost by the force of the elbow (i.e., by ourselves, as in our cruiser episode), or by the force of money (i.e., by the market) or by an arrangement of the captain (i.e., by the State). The result of this process is the erosion of the commons.

So, the real "tragedy of the commons" (a famous metaphor coined by G. Hardin) is that we only become conscious of the commons and their enormous value to us, when they are about to disappear.

2. I am often asked: What exactly is a commons?

We are accustomed to fragment complexity by short, "scientific" and supposedly objective definitions.

Some of the groundbreaking theorizing on the commons has been done by Elinor Ostrom [left]. She and her colleagues insist that there is no "master inventory" or single definition of commons. Each commons is the product of unique historical circumstances, local culture, economical and ecological conditions, and so on.

Instead we must examine what all commons have in common.

What has the defense of biodiversity in common with the struggle for free soft- and hardware?

Why is the struggle for access to knowledge and culture the same struggle as for access to water and against climate change?

The commons allow us to unify in thinking what is separated in our mind but belongs together.

1. All commons share a function. Natural commons, social commons and knowledge commons are all essential to us: "Natural commons are necessary for our survival, while social commons ensure social cohesion, and cultural commons are required for our self directed passion." (source: Manifest: Gemeingüter stärken. Jetzt!)
2. All commons have an architecture: i.e., We can look at them as complex systems in which several components interact. Obviously, those architectures differ greatly from one common to another, but all of them are based on three generic building blocks.

Let us have a quick look at some concrete examples for the first building block: there is biodiversity, the water, our genetic code, algorithms and cultural techniques we use to produce knowledge – like read and write – the notes and the airwaves or the electromagnetic spectrum to transmit music and information; the time we dispose, game-rules, the information, the knowledge we need to get a medical diagnosis or the knowledge compiled by millions of wikipedians, the digital code enclosed in a software programme or the silence.

And the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb emissions: All those are "common pool resources," or CPR. All of us have the same right to use those resources.

A CPR is the first fundamental element of a commons architecture.

What’s the second building block?

In many Boston neighborhoods, it’s a rite of winter: When the first flakes start to fall, the crates and the garbage cans and the chairs come out. Plenty of chairs to protect what some residents insist are "their" spaces on the street. One may think: "But it’s not theirs – I mean, who owns the public streets?"

"This is a commons," says Elinor Ostrom, because the residents, a certain community, share a common understanding of how to use a resource. So, in many (not all) Boston neighborhoods the understanding is that if you shovel out a parking spot, you are entitled to park there until the snow melts. You signal that right by putting a chair in the cleared-out spot. Again, like in our cruiser example the solution is to grant (temporary) use-rights instead of exclusive private property rights.

In other words, temporary possession is not the same as ever lasting property. Everyone can take commons into possession, as long as they don’t take them away from others – nor from future generations!

The community, the group of people which share a common pool resource, is our second generic building bloc. In the case of the atmosphere and other global commons, this "group" is the whole mankind.

Therefore, we should talk about the commons as a verb and not as a noun. It’s not about the water or the atmosphere or the code by themselves. It’s all about us, about the decisions we make.

To quote Peter Linebaugh: "There are no commons without commoning."

"The parking-space example is a wonderful way to show how idiosyncratic a commons can be," says my colleague David Bollier. On the Internet, where the resources are intangible bits of code and information, commons governance takes very different shapes. Each community defines its own rules. And this is the third building block of a commons architecture: a set of, as far as possible, self-ordained rules.

A commons-based society will be based on rules designed in such a way, that they automatically maintain and recreate our commons.

3. What is wrong and how to change it?


If you know this guy – hands up? [Photo of Tim Bernes Lee – nearly no hands up.]


And that one? [Photo of Bill Gates – all hands up!]

Why the difference?

We all owe a lot to Tim Bernes Lee. Nevertheless, most of us don’t know him – nor by name nor by photo. While we are well aware of Bill Gates’ role in the current economy.

In 1989 Tim Berners-Lee wrote the Hypertext Markup Language HTML, the description language for internet-pages and the respective protocol HTTP. Berners-Lee did not patent his ideas, nor its technical implementations. And he ensured that the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) adopted only patent-free standards.

This approach reflects a core idea of the commons: the idea of sharing, as well as the importance of renouncing to control about what other people do. "Web pages are designed for people," says Berners-Lee.

He greatly and successfully contributed to the commons. But the problem is, that our idea of success is linked to old paradigms, to account balances, media presence or business strategies regardless of their contribution to the commons.

If we want the commons get a prominent place in our society, the action of economic players, of the State, and of the indivitual must become bound to commons (and not to the GDP) as the basis of success.

"Whoever fills the commons rather than just drawing from them, deserves prestige and social recognition." (source: Manifest: Gemeingüter stärken. Jetzt!)


Therefore, we urgently need new ideas and a new narrative for the twenty-first century.

We may contribute in many different ways to the commons if we radically focus on:

* Decentralized production, made possible by new levels of networking with digital tools

* Cooperation at a local and global level

* Diversity of resources, communities, designs and rules

* Relationality – which corresponds to this idea: "I need the others, and the others need me.“

Those are the core ideas that underpin the shift to a commons-based society.

Silke Helfrich is the editor of Who Owns the World? The Rediscovery of the Commons, the primary author of CommonsBlog, and a leading thinker in Germany about the idea of the commons.