Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> Situating the Digital Commons
furtherfield on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:59:57 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Situating the Digital Commons

   Situating the Digital Commons.
   A conversation between Ruth Catlow and Tim Waterman
   Ruth Catlow is an artist and co-founder co-director of Furtherfield.
   Tim Waterman is a landscape architectural and urban theorist and critic
   at the University of Greenwich and Research Associate for Landscape and
   Commons at Furtherfield.
   The negotiation of the commons takes place in two distinct realms that
   are increasingly reaching into and shaping one another: the long
   history of the landscape commons both in cities and in the countryside,
   and across digital networks. In both realms we find the continued
   project of the enclosures, appropriating forms of collectively-created
   use value and converting it, wherever possible, into exchange value. In
   this conversation Ruth Catlow and Tim Waterman discuss the âReading the
   Commonsâ project together with Furtherfieldâs work on understanding the
   TW: Iâll start with a little background. 'Reading the Commons' is an
   ongoing project which we initiated that seeks to find a place of power
   in order to defend the continual project of the creation of the commons
   in all realms in the future and to augment and magnify other similar
   endeavours by other groups and organisations. We knew that there is
   already a lot of work being done in and around the idea of the commons,
   so we were less interested in staking out any intellectual ground than
   we were in making connections and finding ways of sharing research and
   experiences amongst ourselves and other interested parties. So far two
   groups have been assembled to read and discuss. The first was convened
   in the summer of 2014 at Furtherfield Commons, the community lab space
   in the South West corner of Finsbury Park, and was composed of a broad
   range of academics and practitioners from different disciplines.i It
   met once a fortnight for several months and discussion was
   wide-ranging. The second was in the Summer of 2015 and involved a group
   of Masterâs students in curation at Goldsmiths under the direction of
   Ele Carpenter. Future incarnations of the group will each try for
   different configurations of people, disciplines, and callings.
   EDC initiated by Ele Carpenter is a collectively stitched version of âA
   Concise Lexicon of/for the Digital Commonsâ by the Raqs Media
   Collective (2003).
   RC: The first group was very diverse - from backgrounds in geography,
   sociology, law, political science, technology, landscape architecture,
   art, and more. We faced an immediate challenge talking across the
   boundaries of all these disciplines and philosophical and cultural
   traditions. This was illustrated immediately in the first session. One
   of our group, a scholar in Law and Property, was irked by our early
   introduction of two Americans , Garrett Hardin and Yochai Benkler. We
   had introduced these theorists along with Elinor Ostrom, Oliver
   Goldsmith and Michel Bauwens.ii The law and property scholar was irked
   for a number of reasons, but particularly because they represented a
   bias towards a US and UK (English speaking) over other European
   traditions- of property and ownership over civil liberties. Another
   participant, with an established practice in arts and technology looked
   pained throughout. I think this was because we seemed to be scratching
   the surface of topics, works and discussions that make up the discourse
   around the network, and the digital commons.
   TW: We partially remedied this problem by asking the participants to
   provide readings for future sections and to give a brief verbal
   RC: For instance Christian Nold led a show-and-tell at the second
   session, based on a book, Autopsy of an Island Currency (2014) that he
   had worked on with Nathalie Aubret and Susanne Jaschko. The book
   problematises a project called Suomenlinna Money Lab, a participatory
   art and design project that worked with money and local currencies as a
   social and artistic medium and that sought to involve a community of
   people in a critique of its own economies. This reinforced for me the
   contribution that situated practices have to make to theories of the
   commons, as the book tells a revealing story of resistance to critique
   in a place and community with an established interest and investment in
   the cultures associated with private ownership.
   TW: Nevertheless there were a lot of times when people âlooked painedâ,
   because basically we had just jumped in and started discussing the idea
   of the commons without realising that we were all speaking with
   different understandings of basic terms. In other words, we were all
   operating on different registers that sprang from our hailing from
   different philosophical and disciplinary roots and traditions. It might
   have benefited us to begin by trying to map out our terms. On the other
   hand, this might have prevented us from ever even starting! This
   mapping, perhaps, is a project that we need to figure out how to
   RC: The difficulty of wrangling different registers was also
   exacerbated by the seemingly unbounded scope of the discussion. The
   relatively recent growth of the World Wide Web introduces enough
   material for months of readings about how the digital commons has
   helped to shift thinking about the commons away from merely the
   management of material resources to knowledge and cultural work.
   Still, we felt - perhaps because Furtherfieldâs physical venues are
   located within a public park - a sense of urgency to think about the
   social layers of physical and digital space in relation to the commons,
   as a way to resist the unquestioning total commercialisation of all
   The social layers of physical and digital space- drawn by Ruth during
   this conversation
   RC: To take a couple of steps back....There are misconceptions about
   the commons that require rectification. Political economist Elinor
   Ostrom showed, in opposition to Garrett Hardin, that in theory and in
   practice, the collective co-operative management of shared
   socio-ecological resources was a lived reality in many localities
   (1990). While her research drew on management of material resources her
   Eight Design Principles for Common Pool Resources, shares many
   characteristics with digital commons.
   Hardin's (1968) essay âThe Tragedy of the Commonsâ had argued that
   commonly owned resources were doomed to exploitation and depletion by
   private individuals; therefore justifying the role of hierarchical,
   centralised systems of power to maintain private ownership. On the
   other hand, Jeremy Gilbert in his book Common Ground (2013), quotes
   radical economist Massimo de Angelis, to define the commons as social
   spheres which help protect us from the market. This becomes
   particularly useful to help us to recalibrate our definitions of "free"
   and âsharingâ as we reveal so much of our private lives (so
   nonchalantly) via ubiquitous, proprietary digital devices and
   commercial social platforms.
   TW: Hardinâs one-dimensional projection of the commons as unworkable
   and disastrous was based upon an understanding of human relations that
   assumed that competitive individualism is âhuman natureâ and that all
   such âexperimentsâ were doomed to failure as a result. This is Darwinâs
   survival of the fittest rendered as âdog eat dogâ. The voice almost
   contemporary with Darwinâs that I think most clearly articulates how
   evolution (human and otherwise) is based upon cooperation is Peter
   Kropotkinâs, in his amazing book Mutual Aid (1902). Evolutionary
   science and theory is moving ever more towards Kropotkinâs conclusions
   rather than Darwinâs, or at least Kropotkinâs work is becoming ever
   more relevant and complementary to Darwinâs. For me, itâs also
   impossible to imagine how cultural evolution could work at all except
   through the cooperation, sharing, and processes of negotiation that
   characterise the commons.
   The landscape commons has always been about more than just material
   resources, and this is perhaps the most reductively oversimplified
   register on which we might speak of the commons. So if the problem is
   to align the different and more meaningful registers along which we all
   discuss the commons so that a truly collective and collaborative
   project can emerge amongst many disciplines simultaneously, we should
   have a go at pinning in place a few core understandings of the commons?
   Shall we give that a go?
   RC: Yes! From my work with Furtherfield, my feeling for the commons is
   strongly influenced by the cultures of freedom and openness in
   engineering and software. In 2011 we created a collection of artworks,
   texts and resources about freedom and openness in the arts in the age
   of the Internet. âFreedom to collaborate â to use, modify and
   redistribute ideas, artworks, experiences, media and tools. Openness to
   the ideas and contributions of others, and new ways of organising and
   making decisions together.âiii
   If we can agree that the commons are those resources that are
   collectively produced and managed by, and in the interests of, the
   people who use them, then the digital commons, as set out by Felix
   Stalder, are the technologies, knowledge and digital cultural resources
   that are communally designed, distributed and owned : wikis,
   open-source software and licensing, and open cultural works and
   knowledge repositories.iv Licences such as the GNU General Public
   License and various Creative Commons licenses ensure that the freedom
   to use, adapt and distribute works produced collectively is preserved
   for the future.
   Discussions of the commons have, in the liberal tradition, centred
   around how to produce, manage and share scarce material resources in a
   bounded geographical locality. This is fundamentally changed in the
   post-industrial, information age, where cultural and knowledge goods
   can be easily, cheaply and quickly copied, shared worldwide and
   transformed. It has brought about a massive shift in the way economics,
   politics and law are practiced.
   As distinct from the users of the majority of corporately-owned search,
   sales and social media utilities (think Google, Amazon, Paypal,
   Facebook, Twitter) and digital entertainment platforms (think Netflix,
   iMusic and Spotify) the community of people involved in developing the
   digital commons âcan intervene in the design and governance of their
   interaction processes and of their shared resourcesâ (Stalder) - think
   Wikipedia, Freesound, Wikihouse. This has long continued to be an area
   of intense critical inquiry, unfolding, and practice for artists who
   are creating digital and networked artworks that take the form of
   platforms, software, tools and interventions such as : Upstage software
   for online âcyberformanceâ; Naked on Pluto, an online game whose
   'players' become unwitting agents in the invasion of their own and
   others' privacy ; and PureDyne, the USB-bootable GNU/Linux operating
   system for creative multimedia.
   Consumer cultures invite us constantly to outsource responsibility for
   knowledge, information and cultural works to the markets. Artists and
   technologists involved in the digital commons make these otherwise
   abstract (and often invisible) shifts in power and social relations
   âfeelable" for more people. In this way they are asserting alternatives
   to the prevailing economic models â often privileging collaboration and
   free expression that disrupt outmoded models of copyright and
   intellectual property.v
   Discussions about the role of affect in the development of the commons
   will be the subject of the next explorations of Reading the Commons,
   and we will certainly come back to these.
   TW: Letâs look at this from another direction. In landscape terms, the
   idea of the commons has evolved a great deal over time, as, for
   example, feudal forms gave way to different hierarchical forms based in
   capitalism and private property, and now in late capitalism and
   neoliberalismâs adaptation to, and cooptation of various forms of
   horizontality, especially in managerial practices. The importance of
   the commons has also shifted from defining notions of shared ownership
   and management of agrarian resources to include various manifestations
   of urban life, most recently and compellingly, perhaps, in the
   dogmatically horizontal democratic organisation amongst participants in
   the Occupy movement.
   Ultimately, the commons, for me, is about dialogue, sharing, and the
   relationship between people and place. The earliest expressions of the
   commons were all about our relationship with food; its procurement,
   preparation, and consumption. A beautiful historic example is the
   importance of the chestnut tree to the inhabitants of the Cévennes in
   southern France, and how it not only embodied the commons, but
   symbolised it as well. Itâs not possible to romanticise this story, as
   itâs one of very hardscrabble survival, but it does illustrate the
   point. As a staple food, the chestnut was a matter of survival for the
   inhabitants of the Cévennes. It would seem, metaphorically, that the
   idea of rootedness would follow naturally from this as a characteristic
   of the commons, but the reality is more nuanced. Chestnuts were
   introduced to the Cévennes by the Romans, and then tended centuries
   later by monks, who would share plants with the peasants with the
   expectation of future tithes. Labour-intensive chestnut orchards were
   farmed not just by locals, but by migrant workers as well. If we
   fast-forward to the 1960s, chestnuts were rediscovered by those wishing
   to get âback to the landâ, reviving agricultural practices that had
   withered away during the years that capitalism had lured people from
   the countryside into towns.
   This shows a very complex picture of the commons: one in which
   colonization and imperialism, monasticism, peasantry, migrant labour,
   and then finally arcadian anti-capitalist mythologies of the 1960s each
   play a part - and Iâm skipping over a lot of historic detail and
   nuance. There is a tendency nowadays to see the commons as exclusively
   autonomous and horizontal, but historically the commons have been
   inextricably bound to patterns of ownership and domination. Far from
   discounting the commons, this shows how the commons can exist within
   and exert pressure against prevailing forms of domination and
   ownership. We need not wait for total revolution or the construction of
   utopia or arcadia. We can get to work now and make a shining example of
   what is possible, making use of existing networks and existing places.
   The anthropologist David Graeber, in his book The Democracy Project,
   (2014) calls this âprefigurative politicsâ: the idea that by acting out
   the model of politics and human association and inhabitation that we
   wish to see, that we work to bring it about.
   RC: Yes, and while sociality, rootedness and affinity are all
   associated with embodied experience, they bubble up again and again in
   the critical and activist media art community who take digital networks
   for their tools, inspiration and context. Take for example the Swedish
   artist/activist group Piratbyrån (The Bureau of Piracy) established in
   2003 to promote the free sharing of information, culture and
   intellectual property. Their entire 2014 exhibition of online and
   physical installations at Furtherfield Gallery highlighted the
   centrality to their work of cultural sharing and
   affinity-building.vi In his recent conversation with Tatiana
   Bazzichelli about networked disruption and business, Marc Garrett
   discusses the importance of affinities in evolving more imaginative,
   less oppositional (and macho) engagement with regressive forces; and
   quoting Donna Haraway says âSituated knowledges are about communities,
   not isolated individuals.â(Haraway 1996).vii
   But Tim, I think you were on a roll. Why donât you keep going? Why is
   the commons important now?
   TW: The exploitation of people and resources that marks the practices
   of contemporary capitalism is very much a continuation of the project
   of the enclosures, whether it is to skim value off creative projects,
   to asset-strip the public sector which is increasingly encroached upon
   by the private sector, or to exhaust land and oppress workers in the
   Third World. The commons, however, are being created continually, and
   they represent not just a resource to be enclosed and exploited, but a
   form of resistance that has particular power because it is lived and
   acted. Itâs not at all a contradiction to say that what is common is
   simultaneously enclosed, exploited, and liberatory. Itâs a matter of
   tipping the balance so that the creation of the commons outpaces its
   RC: As people negotiate systems for renewal and stewardship of the
   resources over time they also arrive at an expression of creative
   identity and shared values.
   TW: A moral economy â¦
   RC: By freely surrendering all collectively created culture, from use
   value for conversion to exchange value, our shared ecologies of
   knowledge, culture and land are dismantled.
   And with this we stand to lose the ability to attend to the nature of
   co-evolving, interdependent entities (human and non-human) and
   conditions, for the healthy evolution and survival of our species.viii
   We are seeing a resurgence of collective and collaborative efforts. Our
   ongoing DIWO (Do It With Others) campaignix sets out to adopt the verve
   and tactics of DIY culture, but to move us on from its individualism
   towards imaginative and experimental artistic collaboration. We
   construct more varied social relations (than those set up by pure
   market exchange) into the proliferation of connected sensing,
   communication and knowledge tools, in order to facilitate new forms of
   trans-global relations and cooperation. Most exciting is the Robin Hood
   Asset Management Cooperativex,an activist hedge fund (and the project
   of economists, critical theorists, artists and financial experts) which
   distributes shares to members and its profits are invested in
   pro-social and commons-focused cultural projects.
   TW: The point about use value is an important one. Capitalism, in the
   familiar equation, seeks to convert use value into exchange value. This
   process abstracts and simplifies value into purely financial terms. The
   language and action of the commons resists this because it is so often
   emplaced and embodied. The commons are local, experienced, shared, and
   negotiated, and they exist within networks of friendship, family, and
   civil society, which operate as moral economies, not purely monetary
   ones. I should probably also make the point that the Greek root of the
   word âmoralâ signifies custom - which suggests that morals exist in the
   relational realm of everyday life, rather than in abstract âhigherâ
   realms or in abstract financialised realms such as âthe marketâ - and
   that âeconomyâ comes from Greek again, the oikos, or household. Another
   firmly embodied and situated idea that is also incontrovertibly
   RC: The digital is becoming embodied and situated in a number of ways.
   Where once the boundaries between the worlds of atoms and bits were
   marked by screens and passwords, chips and implants are now on or in
   our bodies, devices and appliances. People and things are becoming
   increasingly expressive as nodes in the machineweb. Again, this gives
   artists a vital role in making these effects more legible, feelable and
   visible. Our actions are tracked, our utterances and exchanges are
   monitored, and our behaviours inform the design of future media,
   systems and products. This is the cybernetic loop.xi We also see a
   growing awareness of the geo-political questions surrounding the
   physical infrastructure of the Internet and its role in global markets.
   The problematisation of the web through heated debates about ownership
   and control of infrastructure and data, privacy and surveillance
   expressed in the SOPA debates- the Edward Snowden affair; Tim
   Berners-Leeâs campaign for a Magna Carta for the web; calls for a
   Digital Bill of Rights; the development of decentralising blockchain
   technologies that underpin Bitcoin, Etherium and (many other projects;
   artistic projects with a Situationist verve such as those of Piratbyran
   and F.A.T Lab- these all help us to clarify our place, the
   opportunities and limits for agency and action as we straddle the
   physical and digital layers.
   So then we come back to the question of resistance and the commons. If,
   as youâve described above, the continued project of the enclosures sets
   the scene for new acts of resistance, how Tim do you see these acts
   taking place in landscape space?
   TW: The fact that democracy and the commons both take place (literally
   a historic act is situated by its taking place) by occupying space as
   well as by initiating dialogues and negotiations is important.
   Occupying digital space is important, as you have shown Ruth, and
   resisting the forms of surveillance and control that seek to close down
   the digital commons. I take hope from the fact that even if it takes
   generations to end capitalism, or at least to shift it from a form of
   global governance to a competitive economic system more appropriate to
   the scale of the farmersâ market, that the commons will never be fully
   enclosed, because capitalism is dependent upon the commons to create
   value that it then marketises and financialises.
   Defending the digital commons also occupies physical space. It will be,
   from time to time, necessary to occupy the streets and squares of our
   cities in protest to stand up for them. In doing so we stand up for the
   physical commons at the same time. Governments have all sorts of tools
   against public demonstrations, such as the British governmentâs
   recently renewed hostility to trade unionism and its desire to further
   limit strike powers. Strikes will happen whether theyâre legal or not
   though, as history amply demonstrates. Often many instances of land
   occupations are seen to have failed, however they have to have
   succeeded, at least temporarily, to register in the historical record
   as symbolic moments. These moments have immense power. The Diggers, for
   example, followers of Gerrard Winstanley, were proto-anarchists who
   organised horizontally in their land occupation in Surrey,
   Northamptonshire, and Buckinghamshire in the mid-1600s. Their planting
   of vegetables on common land, though a brief experiment, lives on
   powerfully in the discourses of democracy.
   More modern incarnations of this power include the access to land
   gained by the mass trespass at Kinder Scout, the long-term encampment
   at Greenham Common, and the incredibly powerful and highly visible
   symbolism of the Occupy movement in various places from New York to
   London to Istanbul and beyond. A recent echo of the Diggers is the
   occupation of Grow Heathrow, which seeks to prevent the airportâs
   expansion by peacefully living on land proposed for a third runway and
   growing food there.
   RC: So our next steps both for Reading the Commons and in our acting
   out of the commons are to define and map, for the purposes of
   resistance in the ongoing creation of commons; digital collaborocracy
   and an exploration of affect, agency, embodiment and the commons.
   Creative practices under capitalism have long contained elements of
   both creation and resistance (or defence), and now these actions, both
   positive and negative, take place across the digital and situated
   realms as well as what might now be termed the âsituated digitalâ.
   TW: Iâm pursuing ideas of what Kate Soper calls âalternative hedonismâ
   so that sustainability can be conceived of as joyful. I think
   satisfaction - the fulfillment of desire - can have radical
   transformative potential for prosperity as a collective pursuit and is
   perhaps the only way to tip the balance away from liberal and
   neoliberal individualist competitive models. My idea of the commons and
   commoning includes freedom, democracy, nice cups of tea, evenings spent
   drinking wine and talking, the elimination of poverty, and the
   flourishing of human habitat and human potential.
   RC: Let's all drink to that!
   i. The original group involved the following scholars as well as the
   convenors: Anne Bottomley, Reader in Law and Property at Kent Law
   School; Joss Hands, Senior Lecturer in Media and Cultural Studies at
   Newcastle University; Alastair McCapra, Chief Executive at the
   Chartered Institute of Public Relations and board member of Wikimedia
   UK; Nathan Moore, Senior Lecturer in Law at Birkbeck School of Law;
   Christian Nold, artist, designer, and educator; Penny Travlou, Lecturer
   in Cultural Geography and Theory at the Edinburgh School of
   Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Edinburgh; and
   Ed Wall, Academic Leader: Landscape at the University of Greenwich,
   Faculty of Architecture, Computing, and Humanities.
   ii. See 'Indicative reading for Reading the Commons' below notes.
   iii. Furtherfield, 2011. Collaboration and Freedom, collection
   commissioned by Arts Council England for Thinking Digital
   iv. Felix Stalder (2010) Digital Commons: A dictionary entry, Open
   Flows (online) http://felix.openflows.com/node/137
   v. ibid
   vi. Piratbyrån and Friends, exhibition at Furtherfield Gallery
   May-June 2014
   vii. Marc Garrett, 2014.We Need to Talk About Networked Disruption and
   Business: An interview with Tatiana Bazzichelli, Furtherfield (online)
   viii. Ruth Catlow and Marc Garrett (2012) citing Bateson 1972 in
   Remediating the Social 2012. Editor: Simon Biggs, University of
   Edinburgh. Pages 69-74
   ix. http://furtherfield.org/projects/diwo-do-it-others-resource
   x. http://www.robinhoodcoop.org/
   Indicative Reading
   Axelrod, Robert (1984), The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books, 2006
   Barnes, Peter. (2001) Who Owns The Sky? Our Common Assets and the
   Future of Capitalism, Island Press
   Bauwens, Michel. (2013) Class and Capital in Peer Production.
   Bauwens, Michel. (2005)The political economy of peer production.Â
   Â  Benkler, Yochai. (2011) The Penguin and the Leviathan: How
   Cooperation Triumphs Over Self-Interest.
   Boal, Iain. The Long Theft: Episodes in the History of Enclosure
   Bollier, David. Think  Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the
   Life of the Commons and/or  Viral Spiral. How the Commoners Built a
   Digital Republic of Their Own. New York, London, New Press, 2008
   Caffentzis, George. (1973) âIntroduction to the New Enclosuresâ in
   Midnight Oil: Work, Energy, War.
   Clare, John. (1827)Â  From 'April', The Shepherd's CalendarÂ
   DEFRA. (2003) Countryside and Rights of Way Fact Sheets
   De Angelis, Massimo. (2003) 'Reflections on alternatives, commons and
   communities' http://www.commoner.org.uk/deangelis06.pdf
   De Angelis, Massimo and Stavrides, Stavros. (2010) 'On the Commons: A
   Public Interview with Massimo De Angelis and Stavros Stavrides'
   Dragona, Daphne. (2013) 'Artists as commoners in the years of
   indebtedness' http://ludicpyjamas.net/wp/?page_id=815
   Federici, Silvia. (2004) Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and
   Primitive Accumulation (Book)
   Gilbert, Jeremy. (2013) Common Ground - Democracy and Collectivity in
   an Age of Individualism
   Goldsmith, Oliver. (1770) âThe Deserted Villageâ
   Graeber, David. (2013) âA Practical Utopianâs Guide to the Coming
   Haraway, Donna. (1983) âThe Ironic Dreams of a Common Language for
   Women in the Integrated Circuitâ
   Hardin, Garrett. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons
   Harvey, David. Rebel Cities (2013)
   Hyde, Lewis. Common As Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership. 2010
   Kropotkin, Peter. Mutual Aid and/or Fields, Factories and Workshops
   Tomorrow. 1898
   Lessig, Lawrence. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.1999
   Lessig, Lawrence. (2004) Free Culture
   Linebaugh, Peter. The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for
   All. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008
   Linn, Karl. âReclaiming the Sacred Commonsâ and/or Building Commons and
   Community. Oakland: New Village Press, 2007Â
   Marx, Karl. (1844) Private Property and Communism.
   Massey, Doreen. (1994) A Global Sense of PlaceÂ
   Merchant, Carolyn. (2006) The Scientific Revolution and the Death of
   Morris, William. News From Nowhere 1893.Â
   Mumford, Lewis. (1964) Authoritarian and Democratic Technics
   Nold, Christian  and van Kranenburg, Rob. (2011) The Internet of
   People for a Post-Oil World.Â
   Olwig, Kenneth. (2002) Landscape, Nature, and the Body Politic.
   University of Wisconsin Press.Â
   Ostrom, Elinor. (2010) "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric
   Governance of Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review,
   100(3), pp. 641-72.
   Ostrom, Elinor and Hess, Charlotte, Eds. Understanding Knowledge as a
   Commons: From Theory to Practice. The MIT Press, Cambridge,
   Massachusetts, 2006.
   Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons. 1990Â
   Ostrom, Elinor, and Gardner, Roy, and Walker, James, Eds. Rules, Games,
   and Common Pool Resources. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press,
   Platt, John. Platt, J. (1973). "Social Traps". American Psychologist 28
   (8): 641â651. doi:10.1037/h0035723.
   Rexroth, Kenneth. (1974) âCommunalism: From Its Origins to the
   Twentieth Centuryâ
   Sennett, Richard. (2012) Together: The Rituals, Pleasures & Politics of
   Ward, Colin. (2012) Talking Green or âPlay as an Anarchist Parableâ
   from Anarchy in Action.
   Winstanley, Gerrard (1649). A Declaration from the Poor Oppressed
   People of England http://www.bilderberg.org/land/poor.htm

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org