The REAL Tragedy of the Commons
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 06. 2024
- When it comes to the question of how we organise the land we inhabit and the resources therein, we’re presented with two paths: privatisation or nationalisation. The capitalist or the State. But an alternative exists in the commons, and it is no tragedy.
The list of artists used is in the outro.
Introduction - 0:00
The False Dichotomy - 0:50
The Tragedy of the Commons - 4:47
Feudal Foundations - 8:23
How to Manage the Commons - 10:31
=
Support me on Patreon!
/ saintdrew
=
Follow me on Twitter!
/ _saintdrew
=
Follow my music producer, salmon the ghost:
/ salmontheghost
=
Music:
Sun (prod. salmon the ghost)
outro music: Cedar Womb by joe zempel
CZcams: / @joezempel
Spotify: open.spotify.com/artist/3vVDn...
=
Sources & Resources:
extranewsfeed.com/a-history-o...
theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...
Governing the Commons by Elinor Ostrom
/ elinor-ostrom-s-rules-...
www.anarchistrevolt.com/artic...
"The Tragedy of the Commons" is the peak of critiques of communism that are actually just talking about capitalism. "People would overexploit the ecosystem for personal profit" Yeah, imagine if that suddendly happened
exactly! I don’t know what Andrew is talking about: I learned “the tragedy of the commons” in environmental studies as a damning indictment of capitalist economic forces and “rational self-interest”
@@AnkhAnanku Well I have heard of it in it's original form, like Andrew described it. As a critique of common ownership by libertarians. Totally oblivious take to be fair
@@AnkhAnanku I learned it from the perspective he spoke about in high school. He's right that some people use that way, as if humans are inherently to greedy.
@@AnkhAnanku Calling that "rational selfinterest" is like calling suïcide "death by rational decision".
AKA unrational.
Like if you literally know it's bad, then the consequences can't be rational, as it is against your moral compass to do so.
Yeah, that's something that's always bugged me about the TotC. It just assumes that those engaged in collective ownership will be selfish and short-sighted, and that capitalists will be very smart and responsible. Like, no - one of these systems incentivises persuing short-term, individual gains at the expense of the common good and it ain't the one that emphasises communal thinking.
I really hate how all the horrible, destructive behaviors created by the incentives of private ownership and capitalism are commonly understood to be “human nature”.
If humans naturally behaved the way the fantasy of the the tragedy of the commons assumes we do, we would’ve died out before discovering fire.
And if it is human nature to be greedy and abusive, then that is all the more reason to decentralize power anyways, so that we prevent domination from happening in the first place.
If humans were naturally capitalist, you'd think the US wouldn't have to spend so much money killing leftists
competitiveness and dominance is, which is why we struggle with it, but it hardly is exclusive
I concur. The idea of human nature has been distorted by economists with the concept of "homo economicus". It's a basic assumption in economics that all people only act out of self interest, completely rationally and egoistically in order to minimize expenses and maximize profit.
It's obviously a gross oversimplification of human psychology and behavior, but somehow it became embedded and taken as face value not only in economics, somehow it became "common sense". In my opinion it's one of the most damaging ideas ever generated.
@@pumpkingnocchi6578 i’d classify it as a willful gross incompetence, invented to make math models viable because we make “hard science” lol. Steve Keen guts economic math
"The Tragedy of the Commons" is a self-fulfilling prophesy. When you teach people that a resource is only worth what you can exploit it for, and individual enrichment is the highest value, then people will try and exploit it to enrich themselves with no thought to others or the long-term viability of the resource. The Cliven Bundy incident was essentially that exact tragedy.
czcams.com/video/dPOMNdvKZtQ/video.html
Not true. Take a look at Elinor Ostrom's field work and discoveries.
@@johanfurre3401 Er, no, Ostrom's work actually supports my assertion. Her approach to the commons requires that multiple groups accede to the belief that commons are worth preserving as a community resource.
The problem we have now is that we do not have her polycentric responsibility approach to the commons, or the necessary community consensus to establish it.
Our capitalist culture is inherently incompatible with Ostrom's view of the commons; as it prioritizes individual enrichment through short-term and short-sighted enclosure of the commons and exploitation of resources, in direct opposition to community consensus, as noted in my previous comment.
@@EphemeralTao Are you making statements based on any traceable research, or are you opinionizing? Her work does not support your statements. Her work believes in people's capability to recognice commons value beyond this year, or next year. What you are arguing for is the David Harvey's spatial fix theory, and the problems which follow along a "closed eyes" economy, where people do not recognize their interdependence on each other. That is a negative outcome of capitalism as it is being exploited today. The Commons, however, has nothing to do with capitalism. People are not as close-sighted as you argue for. When educated, most people wish to change those systems for the better.
@@johanfurre3401 "When educated, most people wish to change those systems for the better."
You're clearly not comprehending what I'm saying, since that is exactly what I said -- people are being educated to see the commons as nothing but resources to be exploited for the enrichment of an elite few; not as a community resource to be preserved for future generations.
And the commons is very much about capitalism, since it's Enclosure and Privatization of the commons that fuels the consumerist capitalism which is destroying our world.
Sounds like you're the one who needs to do more reading.
Looking at studies that test the "tragedy of the commons" idea, the biggest thing that stood out to me was that the "tragic" scenario only happens when people are not allowed to talk to each other. As soon as the group starts communicating information and decisions are no longer anonymous, the human social instinct takes over and people QUICKLY make collective agreements that result in positive outcomes for all. Alienation is no joke, it's a red flag to always look out for.
What do you think of the One Small Town initiative? It is a platform that allows for community non-profit cooperative development and sharing of resources to enhance prosperity and abundance for all. Members contribute at least 3 hours per week to any of the cooperative projects or businesses, like a Community Kitchen or a hemp farm, for example. In return, members, who are co-owners of all the businesses, get free food and goods, at least every month. They also get an equal share of dividends and a Infinity Token (community token) confirming their 3-hour sweat equity was contributed.
The Library of Things could be built up for these One Small Town Contributionism Members.
To move beyond capitalism, we are going to need a grand expansion of the Community Commons Library of Things.
Andrew has a way of making his videos so engaging. It doesn't feel like a lecture or a sermon. The way Andrew breaks down the information makes it easily digested and understood, I feel like I'm honestly learning with every video.
I'm glad you enjoy my style :)
Idk man. Sermon is a pretty good word for it actually, he's just preaching straight truth and not the recipe for snake oil other sermons are selling
@@Andrewism I'm gonna join in the cheering section by agreeing with all of the above, and adding that I love your voice and accent. Both are pleasant to listen to. If you were to, say, voice Murray Bookchin audio-books...well, I can't say you'd get rich, because Solarpunk Anarchism isn't a profit center, but I bet they'd be awesome to listen to on long trips. 😻
Just found this channel. Best CZcams discovery in years
Wow, thanks!
I second this comment. Because it also applies to me.
Same
@@Andrewism Just found your channel a few days ago. Love it! I especially enjoyed your video on a Library Economy. I can't believe nobody has put it into such clear and obvious strategy of implementation to change the world for the better. I can't stop thinking about how an expanded Community Commons and Library of Things could benefit society and any community looking to move beyond capitalism and towards social and ecological sustainability! A video that may also be interesting to put out in the future could be about the concept of "Ubuntu Contributionism", a concept written and explained by researcher, Michael Tellinger, in his very good book of the same name.
I cannot express how vital, nourishing and how educational it has been to watch and listen to people who are not like me. Learning from different faces and different voices is the only way we can attain a better world ^.^
We all have so much to learn from each other!
It's pretty maddening how even when I got my degree (in econ) that "tragedy of the commons" was, and likely is, still taught in intro courses as if it's a natural law and needs no explanation. When it's really just a thought experiment that presupposes what it's trying to prove, and has so many counterexamples that by rights it should be regarded on the same level as creationism.
Econ is full of myths like that. Try to find a real life example of barter as the primary method of trade anywhere at any time.
yeah its kinda ridiculous. When i took econ 101 I made a huge forum post in my class abt how it was debunked and, how hardin was a huge racist , and my prof said it "wasnt relevant" , as if the systems we take from shitty, racist and harmful worldviews arent also shitty and racist themselves in some way, even if not explicitly.
I have a lot of thoughts on how economics is taught in the US, but to limit myself... the easiest way I can explain is that it's pretty much like alchemy. There are in fact a lot of useful insights and baseline mathematics/calculus that actually make sense and are useful at understanding interconnected systems, predicting effects of policy changes, predicting how companies will behave or consequences of their decisions, etc.. There are also a lot of outright bullshit ideas being floated as natural laws, and depending on the school (both literal and school of thought), they're given as much or more prominence than anything else. Also outside the US, Marxist economics is still a thing that's taught. In the US, it's been effectively purged -- though some ideas still survive in the field of labor economics.
I suppose my advice to anyone who is studying economics in college right now, is to know that parts of it can be useful, but your sense that some things are bullshit is worth exploring (even if you have to repeat that bullshit just to pass a class). Some of the criticisms might be even easier to understand in higher level courses, and in courses outside econ altogether that look at the world from a fundamentally different view. Though I mean, college itself has more issues of capitalist indoctrination and trapping people in debt, but that's another subject...
@@randcall5933 Economists who justify the idea that there's a linear evolution from barter-to-money-to-credit (though idk if that last part is actually taught out loud) like to cherry pick examples. Common ones I've seen have been pointing out using cigarettes as currency in warzones or prisons, or bartering being briefly back in place when the ruble collapsed in 1998 -- e.g., the favorite examples are when there's a societal breakdown, as if that somehow reveals humanity's organizing preferences.
One thing I had to pull from anthropology/sociology is that community organization, and generally doing things for one another, is possibly way more common and sustainable. Like if you're in a place that sustains itself on fishing and have a particularly good catch, you'll distribute to others who are in need before selling the excess -- because if you're in need in the future, you know others will do the same for you unless you have a reputation as someone who lets their neighbors starve. And I mean, I believe *most* people who aren't atomized from one another would do the same (even if there's no tangible reward like money or bartered goods in exchange).
Honestly it's a lot like the ideas in this video that Andrewism described. I don't think people are inclined to behave as purely self-interested and selfish with regards to common resources, just the same as regarding any other resources we might use or exchange, unless faced with severe capitalist pressures and unless we're atomized from one another. Without the belief that humans are naturally "rationally" selfish, both the tragedy of the commons myth, and the myth that there's a barter-to-money-to-credit evolution, start falling apart.
There's a big problem with that in psychology as well, lot of stories they tell to illustrate psychological concepts turn out to be bullshit people in power made up to justify themselves that were uncritically accepted as fact by early psychiatrists - take stockholm syndrome, or the bystander effect - the versions of the stories told about these effects is blatant copaganda that blamed the bystanders and the kidnapping victim in order to distract from police failures - for example, in reality, many people reported the attack on Kitty Genovese to the police, the police just didn't take it seriously because to them it was "just" a domestic assault and not a "serious" crime. In the case of Stockholm syndrome, the victim did not at all forget that she was a victim or fall in love with her attackers or anything like that - it was just a survival tactic, nothing more. It's also not surprising that she sided with her captors over the police, because the police were in fact recklessly shooting at them, her included, and her captors weren't trying to kill her. Again, they were pathologising her for taking a completely reasonable course of actions in the face of terrible policing that was unnecessarily escalating the use of violence and putting her in danger.
Fun fact, the thumbnail art was generated by DALLE 2.😁
No way that's sick
Amazing for an AI
I thought it was an actual painting
Unfortunately the developer of Dall-E, OpenAi, is owned by Elon Musk.
gross
"The _real_ tragedy of the commons is the loss thereof to the elite few" is one of those things that I think we need to be saying more, for as long as such a significant portion of the population holds the myth to be fact (a i can't write rn)
Lawd this hit hard after I impersonate you for the Chinesefication of the Caribbean section in my last video 😮💨 the discourse here has important insight into foreign direct investment for diplomatic means in former colonial countries. Excellent work as always bredda 🙏🏾
Thanks bro!
🇧🇸 big ups from the Bahamas bro. As a fellow Carribean communist, I was just wondering if you had a reading list I could dig into. I'm a firm believer that we as a Carribean have no need to follow the failing paths of the super powers in our vicinity. I'm just looking for literature that I could use to assist and educate those that I am in contact with.
I love what you do and was considering getting into creating. I'm a chef moving into food sciences and agriculture (with a strong peek into mycology) I'm not sure what your primary issues are in Trini but for us in the Bahamas I see food as one of our primary issues. I don't have all the answers but I'd like to assist where my expertise allows. People like you are driving me to do what I do. Keep up the good work.
Thanks a lot! Food is certainly one of my primary concerns for our island as well. Reading list wise, I try to recommend short-ish texts like:
An Anarchist Programme by Errico Malatesta
The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love by bell hooks
Anarchism and the Black Revolution by Lorenzo Komboa Ervin
Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos
The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer
Mutual Aid by Dean Spade
How Nonviolence Protects The State by Peter Gelderloos
The Colonizer and the Colonized by Albert Memmi
I'll need to revise my recommended reading list at some point as this one's over a year old but they're still golden imo. I'm also writing a book of my own directed toward a Caribbean audience regarding these issues.
@@Andrewism Thanks for the list, it's greatly appreciated. I hadn't taken the length into account honestly. Far easier to read say a manifesto than a biography.
@@Andrewism I keep trying to post a comment and a link, but it won't let me post the link. However, love your videos. Keep up your great work. an FYI - Haudenosaunee is pronounced Ho-di-no-sho-nee. Some good youtubes if you search Haudenosaunee Thanksgiving Address and/or Great Law of Peace. There's also a good PBS doc on Native America that talks about the confederacy's formation. To add to your list I would suggest Sandy Grande - Red Pedagogy. There's also an increasing amount of Indigenous lit that can help add to the discussions. Take care.
I wonder if you might be interested in the book, "Ubuntu Contributionism: A Blueprint for Human Prosperity" by researcher Michael Tellinger. It isn't a super short read, but you very quickly get the idea of it from even just a good browse of the chapters and pages. Plus, it is being put into practice with One Small Town initiative, which you can find that webpage online now and then get the book, possibly from a library or free box exchange to enhance your understanding of it. I think the book is fantastic and I love the concept.
"Ubuntu" the ancient African saying meaning "humanity towards others" or "I am what I am because of who we all are."
as someone who studies environmental economics, the tragedy of the commons is akin to the theory of the history of money (that people used to trade etcetera). these gets taught to first-year students in order to make a point that land ownership isn't neccesarily natural or self-evident, and get them thinking about these dynamics. however, it is of course total folklore, like how people used to tell stories about why the seasons change. i don't know how, but economics has mythologized in the same way. it doesn't matter that it's false, you need to know it, in order to understand the framework and talking points people use, to be in on the conversation. there are pleanty of theorists who denote how communal management can be highly succesful for environmental conservation, but their work is much harder to present, because they refuse to stick to a singular narrative.
You might find David Graeber's Debt: The first 5000 years.
It's a great read, and goes over the development of debt and money as it starts to exist.
Oh yes because collective ownership of land resulted in such great management in the Soviet Union and China, oh wait a minute those nations suffered far worse environmental degradation and are still suffering far worse environmental degradation than any of these supposedly evil capitalist powers, to say nothing of Marxist sub-Saharan Africa or India until very recently.
Why don’t you name me a country that collectivized agriculture or land ownership and saw a increase in productivity in the long run, I will wait.
At least here in the US, economics has basically become the cult of capitalism. Like you said, it's all just folklore now.
These orthodox economic ideas are folklore unmoored from reality. The more I learn of them, the more I wonder if knowing this worldview and framing discussion in its terms actually makes it harder to reason.
There is a misuse of statistical mechanics, and a devotion to pre-modern physics (the idea of things having a "natural place" (or natural price). There is also widespread use of mathematical contortions that remind me of the "epicycles" of geocentrism.
Wrhat I like about this dude is that everytime I think of some issue, he has a video ready and waiting addressing my concerns.
Very concientious👍🏾
Yeah so without turning to hyperbole this video presentation really drove home how close we are ideologically and I feel genuinely positive about that fact. I've been on the platform since the beginning in one form or another and I've never encountered someone so willing to speak openly about ideology while simultaneously putting forth a vision of a better world rather than just critical analysis. This has always been my biggest criticism, crucially outside of internet spaces, and you've really gone ahead and tackled that head on in a really impactful way and I frankly really appreciate it comrade. Take care.
In regards to the lie of the tragedy of the commons; I am currently reading a book about the drainage and destruction of the English Fens, much of which was common land. The Fennish commons had lasted centuries and were carefully managed by the local residents, with no formal limit on the amount of grazing animals necessary. In Frampton, a limit was only introduced in 1575 after a lord of the Manor imported 200 cattle to the region from the north of the country, which he then sold on to the London cattle market (Multiple days travel away). It is the elites who are responsible for selfish and destructive use of common resources.
Thank you. I was only taught the Tragedy of The Commons, but it's foolish on the front of it. How could something exist for so long, if the Tragedy was true?
Because it isn’t lasting long. At this moment humanity’s power has gained dominion over the earth and the economic forces of capitalism is driving us to destruction. The “tragedy of the commons” operates on self-interested individuals, not on small collectivist communities.
When people call for renationalization of our infrastructures, like rail and energy, it’s essential that the renationalization places ownership directly in the hands of those working in and using the services of each sector. That way, capitalists and their tory politicians won’t be able to sell them off to one another again.
Holy shit. I'd always thought the tragedy of the commons was like, a real historical event that happened in the 1600s or something, not a completely made up hypothetical scenario based on a bunch of insulting assumptions about farmers made by a guy who has probably never done any farming in his life
I already thought it was always used in a shit argument but damn. This is way worse
I mean the story is pretty damning of individualist free-market capitalists and their exploitation of natural resources in pursuit of infinite economic growth. Maybe the old racist could be right about something that doesn’t have to do with racism? 9_9 just a thought
It's treated as common sense, while any political alternative is criticized as "imposing your untested ideas onto human nature".
In reality, Tragedy of the Commons was completely untested and used to justify neoliberal interventions, while Elinor Ostrom developed her theory from studying real people.
The tragedy of the commons guy admitted he was wrong and revised his thesis, while Ostrom won a Nobel prize in economics. Yet the former became common sense and not the latter
I've just starting working on a theatre project/social experiment where, through discussion during a "play", the audience redesigns society from the ground up. Your videos and resources are helping immensely with the ton of research I need to do to be remotely qualified to pull this off. Thank you!
Wow, that sounds great! I wish I could engage with theater like that in my area.
@@allyson-- If it does well enough here, I would love to tour it.
Each time I think your last video is your best one, your next one comes out.
Keep it up, your last three videos especially have been incredible!
Im jealous of your writing skills and construction of arguments
Great video! So interesting to think about ideas like this; I'd love to hear more about this topic!
More to come on this topic! Stay tuned ;)
I'm so happy I clicked on this video. I'm going to be sharing this every chance I get. It was enlightening and really makes me want to read more about this topic!
I think the thing I like so much about the video is how direct it is. Often when the implementation of production and resource management in an anarchic system is discussed, the author tends to give a handwavy explanation that points you towards reading a laundry list of painfully academic books. You strike a great line between detailed and understandable.
another great one. well put together. well explained. motivational. thank you so much
N i G T h M a R e E y e S
Hate that youtube doesnt show you in my sub feed most times
This was an awesome listen. Thanks for the well thought out content dude!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Andrew yet another phenomenal video! So glad I found your channel! You have a true talent for engaging and teaching comrade!
Another good video makes me think of David graber and David wengrows
The Dawn of Everything with its exploration of the commons and anarcho communities
The fallacious tragedy of the commons argument reminds me a lot of what I've recently been learning about mutualistic relationships in nature, between plants, animals, and fungi, many of which are being discovered for the first time now (despite modern biology as a field having existed for hundreds of years), because formerly the scientists who studied them couldn't imagine anything but a pure competition based, anthropocentric view.
Amazing video, well researched and very educating !! keep the good work up :)
Thank you so much for talking about this topic. You continue to be one of the best voices on Breadtube
i love your taste in artwork. it feels like i learn about a new talented artist or two from every video you post.
I feel dumb because even though my degree is in econ I always thought "the tragedy of the commons' was about the enclosure of them, lol
That says a lot about how economics are taught, doesn't it.
I thought it had to do with the pitfalls of “rational self-interest” and unregulated capitalism, but Andrew here seems to be getting the opposite message?
Idunno, I learned it in environmental science, maybe those finance boys are telling the story wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@AnkhAnanku It's less the opposite message than how the term was created specifically to say any common property is doomed to fail.
@@AnkhAnanku The original argument says that only governments or privatization can avoid disaster, and people have since adapted it to support only governments.
Andrewism (and the Economist Elinor Ostrom) show that there's a third solution where people can organise themselves.
Great work as always!
Always so grateful your anaylses come with solutions. Thank you again.
Such a good video! And thank you for taking out the background music, its more than engaging enough without and makes it waaaay easier to binge your content lol
- this communal system can only work in groups in which everybody knows everybody else, and is interacting with the other group members. If someone is living far away or has access to his own resources, independently from those of the group, the system is unable to control this outlier and to keep them from exploiting the resources the wrong way.
- the group needs autonomous and direct control over these resources, without any interference coming from remote authorities that might demand eg a minimum production of goods no matter the circumstances (tribute, taxes, five years plans)
- both means that these groups cannot exceed a certain size, as that would make it hard to exert the same amount of social control over every member that is obliged to work for the common good (because then it would stay unnoticed when some members with less morale start stealing goods, or trade with outsiders only on their own behalf, destroying the social web)
- there will always be a stratification between those whose opinion is deemed to be of special importance, and those who are thought to be unable to understand the greater good. There is no total equality in 'importance of members' or 'count of votes'.
- thus the group will constantly face challenges coming even from inside, when younger members want to acquire their own private property or a higher social status. These young people have to be integrated, while they are often oriented towards conflict.
- such groups have to think in generations, which makes them very traditional, to the point of becoming dangerously rigid. If changes turn up that have to be adapted to very fast (eg the introduction of cell phones into Africa, or the detection of precious minerals in the soil), this will often become reflected in said conflict between old and young members. Without a proper solution, even a once stable community might break up.
These videos are such a labor of Love- thank you so much.
Dope asf...
Love from Bermuda
I’ve been watching a lot of your videos recently and I find them extremely compelling, I’ve teetered between state vs no state for a while so it’s great to get more anarchist perspectives
So glad I found your channel. Thanks for your content.
Having read Governing the Commons, this video is an excellent introduction to the concepts it covers. The overview of the requirements for a successfully governed CPR is, I think, a very important piece that needs to be more widely known
Visionary stuff! I needed this Utopianism today, thanks Andrew 🌱
The funniest part is that commons has existed for thousands of years durably, private property destroyed the planet in 200 years.
thank you so much for this video. I learned a lot. I also loved seeing all of the beautiful artwork.
The artwork in your videos is always incredible
Hello, again an amazing video you made. Very clear and understandable. You're way of explaining is perfect to attract new people. And also you can see the difference between right-wing videos and these, they're fed on fear, this is flourished by hope.
Thank you!
Hey dude, you really do give me hope for the future. Your not only thinking about the short term but also the long term and not just what you think is necessary but also on what you think we deep down should have. It's not just on numbers or logic that even lefties fall into the trap of. That's still all good but really what you advocate for is something that feels altogether more human and gives us the resources to finally feel like we can trust each other again. That trust that you want to build is something I truly believe will push us forward and its far less cynical then what everyone else seems to want.
thank you for having closed captioning on your videos. great video :-]
This is a fantastic, educational breakdown of the concept, its history, and issues. I really applaud your organization of thought here, and I'd love to hear more about anarchist bottom-up confederations/larger scale cooperatives. I'm still learning about anarchy, and have been curious about the approach to bigger infrastructure/large-scale projects, as well as how to manage a non- carcareal state while addressing issues like domestic violence etc.
Your videos always give me a clean overview of topics while also providing specifics and case studies to hunt down on my own time, which is a type of learning that works well for me. Thanks!
I wish you'd also spoken of the Free & Open Software movement, and the rest of the 'digital' commons.
I'm not finished with this topic yet, more to come :)
@@Andrewism Oh wow. Thanks. That's great to hear!! And thank you for this video really!! ♥
Comment for the algorithm.
Does replying work too?
@@redhippopotamus9144 Don't know, hope so
I'll join you on that!
@@redhippopotamus9144 think it's engagement in general that helps
i love how the very first obstcle to achieving true commons that you mention is burnout. i'm currently in my third year of recovery from burnout and as much as i agree that it is extremely debilitating in regards to productivity i can also say that it is immensely rewarding regarding personal growth and truly comprehending the human experience in general. so may we all burn out and reconnect with our true selves and actual needs, to then build the future we really deserve, toghether. nothing more and nothing less.
thank you for another extremely insightful, concise and entertaining presentation
Best one yet!
Great video man, so glad to have found your channel. This is the first video of yours I've seen, and what I love about it is how hopeful and inspiring it feels compared with a lot of the fear laden "doom and gloom" political videos I've been watching lately on CZcams. Subscribed and hit the bell, cheers!
hey andrew, was wondering if you can talk about the “white genocide” conspiracy and its connection to colonialism/imperialism? i think it’s not a coincidence that the two seem to cuddle up to each other. great video as always, btw!
It's a lie we are actually in a reset, they are actually letting new groups into this country to upsurp the current culture
that concept has been a thing for hundreds of years as it is inherently linked to anti-Semitism to do it justice would be too long. Without colonialism or imperialism the concept would still exist
@@raquetdude yeah, but the two heavily connect with each other.
It's almost too obvious, to be honest. "white genocide" is a blatant and clumsy "justification" for committing genocide against non-white people, in "self defence". All cases of genocide begin with an attempt to paint the targeted group as an oppressor and the actual oppressors as innocent victims.
I think we need to highlight examples, whether real or hypothetical, of these systems in order for them to be more firmly rooted in our imagination, and therefore something that can be applied to our communities in action
This is a really helpful reassessment - these are things I’ve been taught since childhood and my education
This is amazing work.
I am loving your *voice. What you are doing here is 'important work'. Thankyou for your scholarship.
Another thought provoking video!
As a colonizer old white man, it's fantastic to be able to listen to younger folx from different places. Keep kicking ass here and on the It Could Happen Here Pod!
All power to all the people.
always here for a dose of HOPE! gratitude comrade
There's one thing i still haven't quite grasped. As for when Praxis is concerned, i.e. if there's discussion on if X thing should be privatized or nationalised, how would one formulate a concrete plan on socialising it instead, specifically preventing the Providers from putting it back under capitalistic rule?
Are there any sources i could do further reading on, that go into the specifics of this point? Or does Derek Wall's book presented in the description already do that? Would like to know before i spend money on the ebook or take the time to lend it out from a library. (It's not available on a certain hub with a corvid for a logo)
Wall's book is a good place to start. If that certain corvid doesn't have it, there's also Library Genesis
Thanks for the video :)
I am glad you have highlighted Elinor Ostrom's research. I wish this was better known. Are you aware of any follow up to her work?
"If it works in practice then it must work in theory." Best answer to bullshit ever!
i've been thinking about this a lot. first, if the fear is someone takes more than their share ,how's the solution to give it to the greediest person of all? 2. history has born out private ownership increases destructive exploitation of the land, and c, no one fell for this, so it must be a post facto justification
Bro really said "first" "2" and "c" 💀
Great video. Could hear Elinor Ostrom's work throughout. Pretty amazing work she did.
This is great, I'd like to share it with some friends who wish get politically active. I'm excited to check out your other work, I hope they're as good as this one.
Well I'm not suprised that a eugenicist coined the idea that communties always are self-destructive. I have noticed that if someone says "everybody in this other group acts with way" they themselves are the one who acts that way
How can I participate? I want to be involved in this. Peace 😊
Was thinking of how many of gains from anarchist Provo movement in Netherlands has since been destroyed or moved into privatisation with police and gov support. This video gave me more good for thought on that.
Welp, you've just earned a new subscriber.
Basically, the story of the tragedy of the commons is quite literally just capitalism. The way the actors in that story operate (a made up story by capitalists, mind you) as capitalists do... not as socialized communities do. So of course, the capitalist imagines that "dirty commoners" will destroy the land and resources... because that's what he would do.
there are a lot of lies like this, like the prisoners' dilemma. they overlook not only the universal fact that snitches get snitches, but more importantly, cohorts always have more common interests with each other than the party or parties detaining them
I've been looking into this today and, somehow, no one else got around to mentioning that Hardin was a eugenicist and white supremacist. That seems like pretty key context to understanding his idea on why people can't be left to manage themselves.
A surprising commons exists within many corporations. The collection of "in-house tools, equipment, knowledge and resources that allow people to work there.
I love your content. Keep these vids coming!!!
Only small issue I have is that I wish, you wouldn't just "read off" your text from the screen or paper. Instead, more like read it, as if you were talking face-to-face to someone. I think that would make your intonation more natural and therefore make it easier for listeners to just focus on the content (less effort to process the words themselves). As you well know, of course there is no need to take this advice. You are already doing great. ✨ Thanks. 🙂
Saying that as a person whose first language isn't English, and who's had some experience with dubbing and producing audio books for visually impaired friends.
I thought this one was brilliant by the way. Such an important topic!!
And not taught enough at schools etc. by far!!
New to your videos Andrewism. I like the points and outlines you bring up, if you can, can you do a deeper dive on what checks and balances look like in anarchist (and I guess communist) frameworks/systems (all systems have "bad actors"). It would be interesting to see what has worked or could work.
I keep thinking that you might enjoy EF SCHUMACHER's "Small is Beautiful: 25 Years Later... with Commentary" if you haven't read it already. There's a chapter on ownership, another on the purpose of the economy, how the people interact with it, etc. While he worked for England's Coal Board, it's surprising how ecological and communal his perspectives can sometimes be. If you've ever heard of "Buddhist Economics", he might have been the one to invent the concept.
There's also Herman DALY's "Ecological Economics" book from the 1970s you might like.
"He-hee!" I can't with you!🤣🤣🤣
I'm in agreement with this video's message, but I'm having trouble imagining how this sort of concept would apply to things like trains or other resources that span a large area and have interconnected sections. It seems tricky and wasteful of natural resources to replace the entire existing railway system, so how could such a thing be handled?
This is where nesting comes in, as well as working to get resources returned to the commons where it makes sense to do so. In some cases it might be necessary to 'buy' CPRs from current 'owners'. In others, CPRs may be donated, or governance rights handed over to commons entities by the State.
Not everything should be governed under a commons structure. Sometimes formal government (the state) or market governance (private 'ownership') is appropriate. Needs to be considered on a case by case basis.
At any rate, rebuilding systems like railways should be an absolute last resort, particularly when it comes to material resources (as opposed to software, for example). Far better to transfer 'ownership' and governance from one structure to another.
I must have taken the exact 'wrong' lesson from the Tragedy of the Commons.
I took it as an indictment of Capitalism, because each individual using the commons was trying to maximize their own profits at the expense of the community. Aka Capitalism.
We must encourage community ownership of the means of production.
Primitive accumulation: "behind every great fortune is a great crime!"
Whoa, I didn't know Hardin was so shady. I'll have to read up on that
I agree with a lot of things in Anarchy, but I don't agree with doing away with the state entirely. It's power should be far more limited and used only for projects that are too large for viable local management. Things like global disease management, mass transit, and space exploration.
I was just thinking about this earlier. It is really neither this nor that. But a new way. A new third way.
I really like your voice
it's so even
like a text to speech ai
Now that was thought provoking.
Andrew, you should read Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Kimmerer. I’d love a video on your thoughts of its philosophy on getting back to our roots of having a relationship with the land and our people rather than commodifying and privatizing everything.
It's pretty high up on the list of books to read next :)
@@Andrewism Sand Talk by Tyson Yunkaporta is another good one in a similar vein.
@blkninja12 glad you mentioned it! just started reading
I want to preface this with the fact that I follow Marxism for my political theory, however maintain a high degree of respect for Anarchism in general. What is described in the video seems to be a fairly well thought out way of organizing an anarchist society. However, the section titled "How to Manage the Commons" seems to me to be outlining what would be for all intents and purposes a socialist, if not communist, state. Of course, I, being a Marxist, agree with a socialist (or communal) organization regulating the commons. I praise the manner of thought that went into a general overview of such a complex and abstract concept as organizing a post-revolutionary society. and I like the manner of implementing collective ownership of the M.O.P., Democratic society (including democratized workplace). However, my problem with Anarchism is how to defend the revolution against existing capitalist structures?And those sensitive early states much be guarded, and guided towards that finish line. As much as I disagree with anarchists of how to achieve it, we are all working towards that final goal of a stateless and classless society. We cannot forget our common goal, especially in the face of the imperial capitalist order. Anyone looking for a real world, working example of anarchism, I direct you towards the Zapatista movement in Mexico. They've done amazing things for their people, and so close to a marxist project (Cuba) too!
In solidarity, comrades! black and red alike!
The difference is that there is no organisation regulating the commons separately from the people as a whole. Elinor Ostrom describes what separates private or government management from commons management in more depth, but to clarify, commons management requires that all people involved in utilising those commons share collective decision making power over those commons. There is no overarching top-down body of representatives to petition or appeal to.
As for your questions concerning the differences between marxist and anarchist conceptions of the state and how anarchists intend to defend the revolution against existing capitalist structures? I would direct you to the anarchist FAQ so that you can get an in-depth response and sense of what anarchists envision for revolution and why anarchists are so careful to oppose state formation in revolutionary projects: anarchy.works/
Hi
What do the commons do when people don't want to work ?
How do you plan to stop people from trading with each other?
algorithm helping
I like this one very much. With all the shit happening right now, it was the most hopeful thing I heard recently. I'll be glad if you make more about it, and tell more about the organization of Alpine pastoralists and irrigations in South-Eastern Asia.
I'm genuinely tired of that when I'm critical of privatization, my colleagues, friends and family - all start mentioning that the governments are even worse. Why is it hard to occur to people that they can be their own 'governments'?
I'm all for the anarchistic vision of communal organization akin to the indigenous societies whose viable systems of communal governance have unfortunately been lost to the earth. I tend to believe that the fallback to centralized organizational solutions comes from an unrecognized limit that the human mind has to be sufficiently in tune with all the members of their social circle. This often pops its head up as something called "Dunbar's number", a fundamental limit to how many social connections individuals can manage. Surprise, surprise, the estimates for this number, around 150-300 also happen to be right around the point where you'll find people argue that communal organizations begin to stop working.
I truly believe there's a tragedy of the commons, but it's the exact opposite of the reality that we exist in. The neoliberal assumption is that the default state of human nature is selfish greed and the altruists are the exception.
In my opinion, the reality is that the default human state is altruistic, and the exception is selfish. This is where the Dunbar's number comes into play for me. The issue I see is when communities extend beyond that number, a few individual actors are able to behave selfishly to take control of the whole system because the community cannot naturally maintain the communal order of everyone.
The solution I see out of this is leveraging a form of trustless communication as the base layer for which the commons must exist. This form of communication would be a system where actors who are behaving against the communally agreed upon commons cannot participate in the system. I have a bias to think about this in the digital domain, but partially because this is the easiest, and the fact that there's a captured commons of Open Source Software that underpins the true value of the capital economy, all created without any capital motivation.
Trust - this is the place where I believe the commons currently break down, and I think the goal should trying to build toward trustless alternatives that can allow us to break free of biological limits that we have to process the trust of a new individual to the community.
@Xemgol I think this actually cuts right to a really important point. A point of critique towards Stalin and Mao is often that while they did work to overthrow the financial capital, the need to fall back to a centralized authority made the social distance to either of their parties the new capital. On a smaller scale, the Academic institution ends up basing its entire operational social construct on citation capital.
The (potentially overly optimistic) pipedream is that if you can go trustless, you potentially are able to break free from that reliance on central authority, which often inadvertently creates a new form of capital.
Arguably, because we're talking about the commons, I made the assumption that the system is permissionless. So while Academia has mechanisms it uses to break through the social trust issue (citation network), academic institutions aren't the commons.
I'll also acknowledge I have a bias that skews me towards digital organization as the path towards these systems. At the end of the day, the system I think I see is more a set of tools that we need to organically come to consensus about using. And so the obvious social problem of "how do you get everyone to use these tools?" is still a problem in and of itself.
Oh this is an awesome point! One that I haven’t been able to articulate before. That it doesn’t have to be owned by shitty people, but apart of the commons we all get access and help from
10:07 “It ain’t honest, but it’s much” Really captures the rationale and appeal of the whole top-down, exploitative mentality. A clever inversion of basic human morals and values. Basically cheating, on a grand scale.
It’s like basically, believers and over-achievers in this ‘strong and crafty man’ ideology really took to this new way of predatory parasitism as the dominant social structure. Strategies within nature, and thus, potentials within human nature. Away we (humanity) went, for the last few thousand and especially few hundred years.
Now, we just need to focus on getting more honest, caring, etc., remembering that we would not be here if our ancestors hundreds and thousands of years ago, were immature or superficial in their understanding of these values. We often fail to consider the sophistication and practice required for them. The more people are more honest with themselves and each other, the easier it will be to pull things into harmony, despite the ever-present potential for the predator-parasite side within us, among us, to disrupt, distort and ‘commandeer’ the social mores of humanity.
Comment for the algorithm