----- Original Message ---- From: Sean Andrews <cultstud76 at gmail.com> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:31:07 AM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] tragedy of the commons
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:46 PM, andie nachgeborenen
<andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> As some have noted here, the English Commons were the product of themselves several
> thousand years of development. (See E.P. Thompson, Customs in Common)
But the point is that people aren't hardwired a certain way--so acting like they are, that this is "natural" is a fallacy.
> Of course. I really do have to publish my paper on this. In the meantime see my many discussion on human nature in the archives.
I suppose in the case of the west/north this is just a technicality at this point, but when economists speak as if it is a given, there is much to contest.
>Agreed, which is why people like Thompson have much to offer.
> It's not to the point criticize Hardin., Demsetz, Alchian, Coase, Olson, Hayek, Mises (the latter lot being anti-commons right wing
> economists of different kinds) for merely being a priori and nonempirical. In a capitalist world where self-interested maximization is the
> rule, the tragedy of the commons abounds, there it is every where you look.
I see your point, but it's not yet a completely capitalist world;
> More than it was when Hardin wrote
there are plenty of pockets of pre-capitalism and post-capitalist
> Post?
resistance and the argument for eliminating them is often posed in terms of their being unnatural, etc..
>an obvious, stupid fallacy. Ineffecieny is more plausible, wrong, but intelligible.
Many international institutions (or the people who populate them) think that expanding the space in which capitalism can feast on what's left of the commons would be good for everyone involved, i.e. they recommend the disease as the cure. This is hardly a rational course unless we see these as arising in human nature.
> Of course thet arise in human nature, as does collective behavior.
In this case, it seems completely the point to criticize these people on precisely these grounds. They claim to provide universally valid descriptions and prescriptions of human relations. This is the ground on which MacPherson takes down Hobbes and it continues to be valid today, IFAIC.
> Hardin, etc. are merely providing an explanation of a phenomenon which is extremely widespread. Moreover, the explanation is
> substantially accurate.
I just read the article and I was a bit perplexed by how little it actually says about the "tragedy of the commons."
>Cofess I haven't read it it in a bit. I am thinking of Demsetz, mainly.
Moreover, the ultimate argument is on par with the Deep Ecology people Doug chronicles in /ATNE/: we should put a limit on the breeding of homo sapiens. It is an explicitly Malthusian argument which not only rejects Adam Smith but recommends (or at least approves of) a whole range of state practices that should make the erstwhile advocates of libertarianism cringe: taxes, various forms of coercion, strict limits on pollution, and, of course, limits on the number of children people should have. He also longs for the elimination of advertisements from the public sphere and ends by favorably quoting Hegel as saying, "freedom is the recognition of necessity"--again specifically in relation to breeding ("Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all.") It is true that the tiny portion he devotes to describing the "Tragedy of the Commons" is thinly drawn and ahistorical, but the bigger quandry for me is that it inspired such a following.
>Well, all you need is a hook.
It is a fairly unremarkable description except to behavioural economists who like to imagine their work transcends the bounds of time and space; not supported by any historical evidence--except, as Michael notes, the pamphlet; entering a debate about English history that is highly contested and contestable; and misdescribing a number of other natural spaces to shoehorn them into an argument that, at its heart, is a biological rendition of what got economics dubbed "The Dismal Science." He doesn't clearly advocate for private property and in several places finds this an inadequate system. In this regard, it would seem that Michael's take down is sufficient, except that it would be good to note that Hardin's use of the TotC allegorical and incidental.
> As the old man said, in ideology, reality is invertede as in a mirror.l It wouldn't grip if it didn't embody a lot of
> truth. The ideology move is saying that things cannot be otherwise, not in accurately describing how and why they are under capitalist
> market conditions.
Fair enough. But doesn't this mean that one should contest the ideology, point out the historical origins of any supporting evidence, and otherwise challenge the idea that these are transhistorical, natural, etc.?
> Who said otherwise and what are we doing here anyway?
I'm all for being against *only* challenging the "phrases" of the world, but I don't think that means we shouldn't challenge the ideology on ideological grounds as well. After all, what was Capital about except an attempt to found a new understanding of present conditions?
> So, I'm sorry Michael, your reported blow-off of Hardin is not an adequate response. We cannot get rid of Hardin and the TotC until we
> create the conditions under which the commons can thrive. That does not promise to be an easy task.
I call bullshit. I see the point you're making here, but Michael's piece defers to Ostrom who, in the literature, seems to have become the go to person for providing evidence that, not only can the commons thrive, but it already does in various places.
> I think it's a cheat. It's ok to cite the guy, but if it is an important it deserves a more than a see X citataion.
There are challenges to governing them, but the saying we have to be able to provide some absolute, universal, inspirational model a la Robert Owen
> Stop. Read. I did not say model. I said do it.What I said: "We cannot get rid of Hardin and the TotC until we
> create the conditions under which the commons can thrive." That may or may not require various models at various levels of abstractions. I used to talk about thi sin context of market socialism until I hgot bored with re-explaining obvious answers to impermeabe misunderstandings. You can look thi sup in the archive too. Not the issue here. The issue here is actually doing it, ho9wever we do it. My point in the TotC will be with us until we have actually changed the world, not just interpreted it.
in order to even be able to speak about the ridiculousness of the anti-commons argument seems to set the bar a bit too high.
>So I don't.
In fact, it is basically to buy into the consensus (along with Hardin) that we should content ourselves with Private Property until someone, somewhere invents something better out of whole cloth.
>Never said that. Do I sound like I buy into the consensus? Do I strike you as a cheerleader for private property? Why am on this list discussing these topics? See, if you like, my own discussions of maket socialism, extensive over decades on this list and formerly pen-l. I will not be drawn into discussing the topic though.
Notably, this is exactly in opposition to his own recommendation, which I'll end with:
But we can never do nothing. That which we have done for thousands of years is also action. It also produces evils. Once we are aware that the status quo is action, we can then compare its discoverable advantages and disadvantages with the predicted advantages and disadvantages of the proposed reform, discounting as best we can for our lack of experience. On the basis of such a comparison, we can make a rational decision which will not involve the unworkable assumption that only perfect systems are tolerable. (1247-8)
s
> Yup.
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk