This is the post-conference video, that the wonderful team of Remix the Commons together with Gazibo produced as a round-table with Commons Strategies Group, that is: with Michel Bauwens, David Bollier and me. We were asked to:
- talk about the most surprising thing during the whole conference
- identify one single idea discussed at the conference
- express our thoughts on power and political struggle (related to the commons)
- forsee the evolution and future of an international commons movement (sic!)
- address the commoners in the world „here and now“
Ok, we did. You may judge how we did.
Mike Linksvayer pointed me to a confusion I made when referring to a very useful insight I’ve drawn from Séverine Dusollier‘ work at the Propice Seminar on Property and the Commons in Paris earlier this year.
At 4’23 in the vid I say:
Commons are not the presence of non-exclusivity but the absence of exclusivity.
Commons is not the absence of exclusivity but the presence of non-exclusivity – which is a slight but important difference – the plenitude of non-exclusivity.
Well, one is not the opposite of the other, but „there is a slight but important difference“, even in strategic terms. Do we focus on fighting exclusivity or on designing for non-exclusivity?
Obviously, Carolina is right, and I messed it up ;-), but I feel consoled because when explaining the sentence I get the correct message accross: The core idea of the commons is about defending the idea of non-exclusivity by designing institutions, spaces, projects and ways of production that cannot be occupied/controled by only one person. It is protecting the plenitude of non-exclusivity. In short: The Commons is about Non-Exclusivity by design.
Mike, many thanks for pointing me to this confusion.
If Remix the Commons would ask me again for a message to the commoners „here and now“, I’d say
Remember: The Commons means designing for, defending and protecting non-exclusivity.