Thursday, September 19, 2013

The Commons V Common Ownership

For us in the World Socialist Movement it is always a pity that others critics of capitalism lack confidence that either there are sufficient resources on the planet to provide for all , or that human beings can work voluntarily, and co-operate to organise production & distribution of wealth without chaos, and consume wealth responsibly without some form of rationing.

Too often we encounter well-intentioned activists who do not go far enough and offer models for the solution of the world’s social problems  that retains major elements of the market system, but more importantly is simply highly unlikely to be workable in the real world.

Unfortunately this too is the case with the otherwise provocative and thoughtful review of Jose Luis Vivero Pol’s essay, “Food as a Commons: Reframing the Narrative of the Food System.” by David Bollier that can be read here in its entirety. 

Also too often partisans of their own ideas fail to appreciate the efforts of many others to address the problems of the world. How can Bollier quote unquestioningly Pol’s statement:
“Strangely, “no one has really questioned the nature of food as a private good, produced by private inputs or privately harvested in enclosed areas of the world." Yet asking such a question helps us to see why massive hunger can persist with food abundance. The ethic of “no money, no food” means that only those with sufficient "consumer demand" are entitled to food.” without acknowledging the contributions of generations of socialists and anarcho-communists who struggled for the end of the exchange economy , the end of prices and money, and the end of the wages system.

How can he fail to mention that those who advocate that "once we regard food as a commons, we can begin to see that everybody ought to have a human right to food.” and ignore the existence of the age-old demand of the socialist movement “to each according to need”. Rather than embrace the case for free access to the fruits of our labour Bollier accepts Pol’s legislative proposals of “social charters”, once more paying little attention to the reality of the capitalist world that such humanitarian pledges already exist in the United Nations.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in its In Article 25 clearly states that;
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

It is ignored

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in its Article 24 stated;
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.
2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:
(a) To diminish infant and child mortality;
(b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care;
(c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution...

It is ignored

 Capitalism is full of “rights” that are never delivered, just as all those well-meaning agreements to combat climate-change rarely get implemented. Wishes are only granted in fairy tales.

It requires a change in the economic system to end unnecessary suffering and hardship and while both Bollier and Pol seem to be on the same path as ourselves and others, they are somewhat lagging behind, and risk side-tracking us all into campaigning for legislative half-measures
rather than abolish the cause.


No comments: