# 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’

![Dance of provisioning - and dance of commoning at the heart](https://781026599-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-legacy-files/o/assets%2F-MbjRiwwKa0TXyi4B5WE%2F-Me1SQAIGU7etLWv1UU4%2F-MeBWuAICkSGUiPqq3yk%2Fdual%20power%20%26%20commoning.jpeg?alt=media\&token=9ec9bc6d-604f-4354-85a9-db7af597dee0)

> 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](https://meet-coop-1.gitbook.io/handbook-trial/2-political-economy/commons-political-economy/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](https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-07-27/growing-the-commonsverse/)
>
> xxx Power (power**s**). 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](https://meet-coop-1.gitbook.io/handbook-trial/3-social-relations/six-rs-of-civil-society-activism/reparation-reconciliation-restorative-justice) in the seven Rs.
>
> xxx ‘The mutual sector’. See [Social relations](https://meet-coop-1.gitbook.io/handbook-trial/3-social-relations/design-and-operation-principles) 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.