Of all the readings/media this week, the one that I found most thought-provoking was Commons Against and Beyond Capitalism. I’m still not sure how to distinguish between regular “commons” and “anti-capitalist commons,” but from my estimation it seems that anti-capitalist commons differ in that they are “separate” from the neoliberal market entirely – not a branch of it, and not embedded within it or susceptible to its fluctuations like the lobster-fishing commons. I hope we can explore this distinction more in class because I do feel a bit confused about it, even now.
When I think of “commons”, what comes to mind is the weekly farmers’ market that we have here in Whitehorse in the summer months. However, I don’t think this would fall under the idea of “anti-capitalist commons” because even though it’s a free shared space for vendors and buyers alike, the vendors are still operating within the capitalist market. It seems that the only way an anti-capitalist commons could work would be within the barter system and epistemology of the Quechua, which is built upon ayni system that Professor Mitchell and Rosie Motz discussed in the podcast lecture. But even still, isn’t the system itself dependent upon market fluctuations and the use of growing spaces that are affected by globalization (like the land that the Quechua community in Hija de la Laguna, which is being affected by mining)? In this case, what is the solution? Commons Against and Beyond Capitalism was very theoretical but I didn’t see anything concrete about how to realize the vision of an anti-capitalist commons. However, I’m not very well-versed in economics or political sciences so maybe this just isn’t resonating. If someone can clear this up for me – help!
Tamara Mitchell
November 28, 2020 — 11:05 am
Your observation that an anti-capitalist commons should exist outside of the neoliberal market is spot on. This type of commons would not exist to compensate for the shortcomings and inequalities of neoliberal capitalism. Instead, non-capitalist values would structure the economics of the system. I think socialist values (collective contribution and ownership of common goods) or the ayni system (reciprocity, contribute what you can, take what you need) are two possible ways of making this type of commons concrete. However, socialist values, in this case, would not mean socialism, and Federici and Caffentzis are careful to note the the commons operates apart from the public (and socialism, of course, is a sharing of public assets facilitated by the state).
(As I’m writing this, I’m wondering if the title “anti-capitalist” is what is provoking confusion, because “anti-” seems to suggest against, but what they advocate for is more like “other”).
I wonder if there can be an anti-capitalist commons inside of a (capitalist) commons. For instance, if, at your Whitehorse farmers market, there is a barter system among the vendors, that would function apart from the capitalist selling of goods to customers.
This post was helpful for structuring our synchronous class discussion, so thank you for the productive questions. If you still have any doubts, let me know!