Commoning as a practice of dual power - Beyond . .

Updated 09jul2021

Incomplete. To be expanded xxx

xxx Dual power - beyond the market and the state, beyond the consumerist household and the traditional community or the bureaucratic NGO. A mode of production (aka contribution), emergent. See eg Wall 2017 ‘rules for radicals’

xxx Dance of provisioning, with dance of commoning at the centre

Relations of production

FoPs, RoPs. Tacit dimension in this schema. xxx Material dependence of meet.coop. See: Dependence - Livelihood, infrastructure, dual power. The nature of this struggle, the degree of freedom?

xxx B&H - Growing the commonsverse pp 201 ff. - The practice of going beyond capiotal and the state. Property and individuals, property and commodity, the state and capital. Regions and municipalities, global civil society. Extract in Resilience​

xxx Power (powers). Relations of economic production (material means of subsistence and wellbeing). Relations of cultural production (knowing and capability). Relations of aesthetic production (structures of feeling, the ecology of impulses).

Commoning in multiple dimensions, and care work

The schema above is explicitly in the economic space, and commoning is thus presented as a sphere of dual power in terms of relations of economic production. But economic, cultural and aesthetic spaces are inseparable: all practice runs in all three landscapes. Thus, assume cultural and aesthetic versions of the above schema too, in which commoning, again, is at the hub of a ‘dance’ of diverse, contradictory and at least partially harmful modes of cultural and aesthetic (re)production. As a regime of dual power, commoning runs to the deepest, most profoundly mutualised levels.

xxx Beyond all kinds of supremacy. See Reparation, reconciliation in the seven Rs.

xxx ‘The mutual sector’. See Social relations and discussion of the meet.coop community. Mutuality in the ‘particular/public’ quadrant in the schema above - is the pivot of commoning: commons are the rationals of the mutual sector. Whereas ‘coops’ are historically in the ‘market/commodity/ownership/private’ dimension.

Protocols

xxx - alter at least some RoPS - else it’s not activism, it’s just churn. Dil Green refers to the latter as ‘in-band’ change, the change that is not change.