Property in the commons?

:-)
“many intentionally shared commons of physical and information resources, and . . . clear and effective standards for an unlimited variety of economic relationships and transactions” Yes!

“lots of focus, conversation and time” Yes!!

Wake early, work late, stay cool and B R E A T H E !

Quick Reflection 1: "All we do is intentionally transform physical resources to (hopefully) make them more useful for specific purposes or functions": Sets of instructions, designs and 'art' (non-applied - if you believe in such a thing!) are relatively pure forms of intellectual (non material) property which don't have to involve material resource transformations - but can command high monetary values. I think we have to be interested in both kinds of property because the broad project is to make workable distinctions between personal, inter-personal (stock in trade) and non-personal 'property' (non-property) like water, air etc. For this reason there needs to be some work at a granular level on the existing categories of 'goods' and 'raw materials' and to re-frame them in the context of a commoning economy. (This is probably happening -- so maybe someone could send links?)

QR2: "To what extent are artisans in different spheres even interested in commons stewardship of individually-hatched cultural products, as distinct from personal intellectual property?" Artists contribute massively to the common good in tangible and intangible ways. Some of this contribution has been demeaned to 'art-washing' in urban contexts because - specifically because - they cannot access the capital requirements to take owner- or stewardship of the many resources they need for work ( eg buildings). When, as is happening in my home City of Norwich, a 10 year old community of 'Creative Independents' (as they are self identifying) are given a years notice of possible eviction, their interest in what commons stewardship can do for them is accentuated to a huge degree. The fact that none of their influencing forces (art schools, arts orgs, arts councils, local authorities etc) have encouraged this interest previously presents a challenge to any potential commons movement and an indictment of the extractive nature of those influencing forces. The extent of their interest is directly proportionate to available information and perceived threat. right now - THEY ARE ALL EARS (all 300 or so...)

I am devising a 'Cultural Commons Audit' as a beginning point to encourage this community to join together in discovering what they share and what they could (but don't) share; what their deficits are and where their surpluses are and what's to gain from valuing each other and themselves collectively! Looking to these pages for ongoing support and information! Thanks all. LM

Liam @liammurphy I'm also wondering about how history might illuminate this. In my understanding, there were long periods where artists (including musicians etc.) made a living essentially only through patronage. Or if you were someone like Carlo Gesualdo, you were yourself a noble of private means so you could indulge your artistic tastes without concern for patronage.

(And talking of private means, there was a time when science was only able to be pursued by those of private means...)

One question could be, could we look forward to some kind of commons "patronage"? Works of art would be free to reproduce, but the artist would be paid by supporters / admirers / by common consent.

If you are willing to consider this, then, what are the advantages and disadvantages of this system and the (present) one of creating and selling intellectual property? Are there signs of common patronage emerging (e.g. Patreon)? At a tangent, is Patreon a platform co-op? And if not, is there a co-op equivalent? It's certainly a different model from Stocksy.

I'm pretty sure that Patreon is not a cooperative. And this is not the first time I've come across this idea of a #platformcoop version of Patreon. You could probably get the basic thing up and running as an MVP using OpenCollective (the UK version).

Simon notes "wondering about how history might illuminate this . . . there were long periods where artists (including musicians etc.) made a living essentially only through patronage"

By far the clearest historical thing I know on this is Raymond Williams in his 1981 Fontana paperback 'Culture' (published in USA as 'The sociology of culture'). In chapter 2 on 'institutions' he discusses - in historical sequence: instituted artists (eg bards), artists and patrons, artists and markets and post-market forms. Since he was writing before we had massively powerful media-savvy computers in our pockets, some of his categories may need expanding and no doubt new ones - eg covering social media - need adding. But his classification of relationships between 'creators' and elites and customers and the modern State is a good, clear place to start in designing new relationships.

Thanks for this, Mike @mikeh8 -- very interesting and takes it much deeper than my simple starting point. I find the "instituted artist" model of particular interest, as giving more stability, but at what cost, in terms of creativity?

If what is created is to be part of a commons, then it's difficult to see any model working where products are sold. But Patreon (and the like) works on the basis that you fund people to continue creating more of what they have done. It's nice and "democratic", but depends on an economy where people have surplus income to pass on. If contributing were compulsory, it might breed resentment.

All I'm reaffirming is that "property" is not the only way of supporting artists or creatives. I haven't read Proudhon ("property is theft!") but I guess that line of thinking may be worth checking up on.

Hi Simon: I re-read this:

"If what is created is to be part of a commons, then it's difficult to see any model working where products are sold. But Patreon (and the like) works on the basis that you fund people to continue creating more of what they have done. It's nice and "democratic", but depends on an economy where people have surplus income to pass on. If contributing were compulsory, it might breed resentment."

Bit baffled here... How can you tell the jewelry maker who sells what she makes on a craft market each week that she doesn't fit into a commons model? Does she belong 'outside' the commons? Also, if people cannot sell what they make, where does any surplus income ever get generated? Surely products are sold in the commons? When you say 'you' fund - who is 'you'? Surely also, the artist herself is part of an artists' commons and funds herself along with other artists? What is in the commons is the market place she uses, possibly her raw materials, her skills etc... It's this which prevents Patreon from being a 'common' (and the lack of shared ownership):

You mustn't: "Create content or rewards using others' intellectual property, unless you have written permission to use it, or your use is protected by fair use."...

Our Jewelry maker, in a commons marketplace, can sell her work, but also, she can sell the work of other commoners, - she must pay them and they must pay her and the common receives something too. That would be peer production. Surely the selling is not the issue, but the ownership of the market place? Patreon's is not shared, but if it were, and licenses were (unless agreed for commons fund purposes) open, it could be - or am I missing a point? If I am I need to know as what I'm describing is the culturebanking® model...! all best, L

Open Collective wouldn't cut it - it's not got the features, eg escrow, payment gateways you'd need - but is good for partner contributions etc - am working on an ap and web based platform now - seeking start-up finance!

I'd like to think this through in terms of, say "commons-based economic systems". As far as I can see, there are many different ways of organising things that have at least some element of "commons" in them. On the one end, "commons-lite" you could call it ;) most things work just the same as at present, but, say, the market itself is run as a commons. Or the means of production is in common ownership.

At the other extreme, I can also imagine a society (I'm sure there have been many) where most things are owned in common, not by individuals.

So what about your jewellery makers? The fact that they have a commons-based marketplace is, to me, a good thing to be encouraged, but does that make it "commons-based peer production" as in Wikipedia or as in the P2PF wiki? Well, I'm not sure about that -- you can read the articles and decide.

Many good things are not on/off, black/white. There isn't a single criterion on which you either qualify, or don't, as part of "The Commons". To me, any move towards the commons is a good one. The "Commons Transition" is not a sudden quantum leap, but a process, a journey, and we can encourage each other along the road.

Read my bit that you quoted again -- "If what is created is to be part of a commons, then it's difficult to see any model working where products are sold." The jewellery created is not going to be part of the commons in any world that I can envisage. It's going to be private property! But still, I could envisage a jewellers business where the equipment was held in common; and perhaps more interestingly where the designs and techniques were also held in common between the jewellers. The intellectual commons would be the commons of design and technique.

Having a commons marketplace is good. Where you can go after that depends on what you are doing.

@asimong Your reference to 'commons lite' is helpful, prompting thoughts about what really heavy duty, Big Medicine commons might be . . and the spectrum in between. As you say, a market that is operated as a commons is a whole other kind of market than most we find ourselves in. Even the weekly Farmer's Market is likely to be run by an entrepreneur or a local government authority rather than governed by the traders and customers - as it might have been 250 years ago, through the so-called 'moral economy of the C18 crowd', before the corn merchants and capitalist farmers sidelined them?

Kinds of commons? Customary/indigenous/subsistence commons. Casual (formally-) unregulated commons (eg gossip, or the notorious kind that Garrett Hardin wrote about). Philanthropic commons (where a proprietor makes stuff available as 'common goods' but decides what's on offer). Faux commons (like the gossip that Facebook promotes in the public part, while raking-off commercial assets with its ever-vigilant proprietary algorithms in the back office). And really heavy-duty revolutionary commons like Kleiner's Venture Commune.Many degrees of commons . . in the comment below I was mistaken to imply that there was just one 'real' kind.

There must be discussions of these distinctions somewhere? @michelbauwens1 must have posted something, maybe in P2PF wiki? Patterns of Commoning displays many kinds of commons but I don't think it types them (except tacitly, in the section headings - is this seen as a durable or authoritative classification)? Customary vs contemporary commons is one distinction that's made, but that's only a small part of the language. Does Elinor Ostrom offer a typology and is it in P2PF wiki?

I must go search . . but meanwhile if anyone knows these answers, it will save on search time.