Utopia Governance and the Commons: THIRD EDITION by Tom Wallace - HTML preview

book

(following

Alexander

Lowen’s,

Pleasure) I suggest there are no purely cerebral pleasures. All emotions and their affect as pleasure are aspects of the body. The body knows what’s really going on, better than the mind. The body knows how to heal itself, if needed, and how to heal the mind — if given the time and space. But minds tend not to listen.

Conflicted as we are about our bodies in Western societies, I think this, in turn, leads to a conflict over pleasure. Perhaps we are a bit concerned about being considered ‘superficial’ if we were to only speak about a motivation towards

physical

pleasure.

Perhaps

we

substitute possessions as a less direct form of pleasure because of this conflict. If we were more at ease with our bodies, maybe we would not see physical pleasure as somehow decadent or superficial, but as essential to life.

As we saw in Chapter 9, on nature, a new story would be about protecting and enhancing natural environments, so far as this is possible.

317

Utopia Governance and the Commons The reasons for this are several, but one of the most important is for the pleasure that nature brings us. Our connection with nature is a deep source of joy. I can recommend such books as David Abram’s, The Spell of the Sensuous and Becoming

Animal

and

Mary

Reynolds

Thompson’s, Reclaiming the Wild Soul as guides to this subject. It’s the beauty that we find in nature that feeds the soul.

Care of nature stretches between all scales, from the local to the global. At the neighbourhood level, we see so many spaces covered in paving and even fake grass. I would rather see a garden full of weeds than concrete paviours. With a little effort — and hopefully, the co-operation of neighbours — gardens can offer a haven for wildlife. Those little ponds, streams and trees that are so easily swept away by building projects, are deserving of our protection and also inviting our enjoyment.

At the slightly larger scale, parks, woodlands, hedgerows, lakes, rivers and beaches need our careful protection, and offer us great joy. With such features on our doorsteps, there is little need to always be jetting off somewhere else.

Let’s enjoy what we have locally, and actively preserve such places as best we can.

At the national level, many countries legislate to protect areas of wild nature. These are a great source of pleasure for us humans. The wilder the wild place is allowed to be, the more the pleasure.

On the global scale, the oceans, rainforests, mountain ranges, savannahs, coral reefs and 318

Utopia Governance and the Commons island chains take us back to who we are. They remind us of our fragility and the precariousness of human life. Without such places, we are doomed to a life of unremitting blandness. The big places of the world invite us to a life of adventure.

But we need to think about how such places steal all the headlines, whilst the smaller and less spectacular corners of nature are often neglected. It is often a mystery to me why small pockets of nature, easily reached by people living nearby, remain empty of human visitors. It is good for me, and for the few others who do choose to visit, but sad to think that so many people are presumably just preferring to go to the shops or to travel away to some place more ‘exciting’, than make the most of what is on our own doorsteps. Truly most of us do not love nature enough.

Pleasure and Place

In Chapter 10, on place, we considered how participation in local governance could bring about

a

transformation

in

our

physical

surroundings. Many of the ideas of Parapolity and Parecon are driving towards this aspect of local decision-making. Seeing local changes, and being able to influence them, is the thing that is going to get people to engage. It starts from the bottom up, so it is very much about seeing an improvement in our immediate surroundings. This is the direct consequence of a more engaged style of politics. It might sound, at best, like a necessary evil, to deal with these administrative tasks. But we could turn this

around

and

say

instead

that

our

319

Utopia Governance and the Commons communities are dedicated to giving joy and pleasure to their citizens.

There is an awful phrase that says: Good fences make good neighbours. It seems to be saying that if everyone just looked after their own (perhaps their own personal business, as well as their own property) then life would be better. It could almost be the mission statement of Privatopia. Why not instead go for the mantra: No fences make better neighbours. There is, however, the notion that ‘good fences’ refers to the more abstract concept of having some boundaries in our relations with those who live near us. This, indeed, I wholly support. As I’ve mentioned earlier in the book, neighbours are not necessarily friends and there are often strict unwritten rules about the level of engagement that is appropriate with those who live near us.

But yes, the physical boundaries may be something we could question and perhaps we’d achieve better physical surroundings if we weren’t so obsessed with walls and fences.

Enhancing the spaces we live in is partly about changing the very rigid and often stultifying spaces that we create around our buildings. The little patch of garden, surrounded by a wall or fence is something of a sad sight. Sometimes, certainly, a garden can be a beautiful space and an oasis from what might, after all, be less than brilliant surroundings. But what if, instead, all those little private gardens were opened up and neighbours shared those spaces in interesting and exciting ways? Think of the parties, the barbecues, the lantern lights, the fireworks — all shared, along with conversations, joys, sorrows, birthdays, weddings, music, speeches, flowers, 320

Utopia Governance and the Commons vegetables, fruit. I cannot help but feel that the grumpy neighbour could be overwhelmed by the simple generosity and kindness of neighbours.

The places and spaces we create are the backdrop to shared pleasures.

We can easily extend that concept from gardens and neighbours to bigger spaces like the streets and squares of our towns and cities. Here the parties are on a bigger scale. My own adopted home town of Edinburgh is transformed in August by the largest arts festival in the world, plus all the associated hullabaloo. Recently, once a month, many of the streets of the city are closed to traffic, and festival-style events take over for a few hours. Many cities around the world are doing the same and finding the great benefits that can be derived from streets given back to people instead of being clogged by cars. Those cities that have experimented with car-free days are leading the way towards a pleasure that is almost forgotten — streets that are for people.

Chapter 10, on place, has already spoken about how the dominance of the car has blighted towns and cities. Roads are not spaces to which we easily relate. The bigger and faster the road, the worse it gets. Ridding society of the tyranny of the private car would certainly change the feel of our cities, towns and countryside. I realise, as we’ve touched on earlier, this would be anathema for some folk. The car is where competing notions of pleasure really come to a head. Perhaps somehow, with some re-thinking, we could look to accommodate our vehicles without spoiling our public spaces.

321

Utopia Governance and the Commons Pleasure and Compassion

From this chapter and the last, I hope it is clear that there is a very strong link between pleasure and compassion. Compassion is as much about sharing pleasure as it is about caring for those in need. Privatopia pushes us towards individualistic pleasure. More genuine pleasures though,

tend

to

be

shared

experiences.

Pleasure is a social construct. How different our relationships would be if the emphasis were on pleasure — if we could seek to be ‘empleasured’

rather than empowered. Compassion is the great leveller in society. When illness or bad times afflict those around us then power relations are dropped in favour of caring.

Humour too is a sharing that I would include in compassion. We are all equal when we are laughing.

In the wider, and more formal, relations of compassion, there is pleasure (perhaps even the deepest of pleasures) in seeing other people happy. What, after all, are freedom, justice and equality, except means by which we try to bestow happiness on others? So part of the new story is to go where the love is in your life — to step towards your passion and your enthusiasm.

Aristotle saw pleasure and goodness to be intimately linked. ‘The highest good is happiness’, he said,’ and that consists of the actualisation and perfect practice of goodness.’

So here is another way to look at that issue of grading pleasures that we touched on earlier. If happiness is pleasure and purpose extended over time, our beliefs, our compassion for others and care for the world are providing us with the

‘purpose’ side of the equation. A wider view of 322

Utopia Governance and the Commons pleasure takes in what might be for our long-term good and to include what our culture would regard as worthwhile moral purposes. Thus, culture provides a ‘grading’ of pleasure beyond the individual. Higher purpose — beyond individual purpose — provides a measure, derived from compassion — that utilitarian views of pleasure and our economics don’t readily acknowledge. Giving some or all of our lives over to higher purposes may mean we enjoy less individual pleasure and happiness than we might otherwise, but nonetheless feel our lives are more worthwhile. Purpose is a social and cultural thing, beyond individual pleasure. What was said earlier about the pleasure of connection between people is closely related to this thought.

Pleasure and Work

A total commitment to what we are doing is the basis for pleasure — more focused, not less.

Alexander Lowen explains:

‘The search for fun in adults undermines their capacity for pleasure. Pleasure demands a serious attitude towards life, a commitment to one’s existence and work… If a person has pleasure in his daily life, he will have no desire to escape.’

Alexander Lowen — Pleasure

So we can recognise pleasure as including such things as having a vocation rather than a career, seeking knowledge for its own sake, and serving others in business and in our communities, rather than trying to profit by them. All of this 323

Utopia Governance and the Commons is just a matter of changing our descriptions of the way our lives and cultures are organised —

changing our stories about the meaning of work.

James Hillman explores the deadening effects on a family from the current style of work and family life:

‘Father’s oscillations between rage and apathy, like his children’s allergies and behaviour disorders and his wife’s depression and bitter resentments,, of rm part of a pattern that we all share – not the “family system”, but the system of rip-off economics that prioritises their communal senselessness by substituting

“more” for “beyond”.

‘And so his absences – physical, mental, spiritual – call him away from the cage of American delusions and crush the angel’s wings. Without inspiration, what’s left is bare, aimless ferocity. Without desire for an ideal, what’s left is lustful fantasy and the seduction of free-floating images that find no anchor in actual projects. Present in body and absent in spirit, he lies on the couch shamed by his own daimon for the potentials in his soul that will not be subdued.’

James Hillman — The Soul’s Code

‘The worker must be an artist, and the artist a worker’, said R. Page Arnot, but work, it has to be said, is not such a vocation for everyone. It can seem like a slap in the face to tell people they must have a vocation and not just a job, or that everyone is an artist, in their own way.

Can we reclaim work from the drudgery that it is for so many people? Or, returning to the problem of grading pleasures discussed above, perhaps we should just acknowledge that some 324

Utopia Governance and the Commons people may be happier with a straight-forward job and will seek their pleasures in their spare time. Talk of having a vocation then can be a bit elitist.

The dream of a future that involves total leisure has been there for many years. Mechanisation never quite delivered. There always seemed to be new things — new wants and needs — that meant

that

as

jobs

were

lost

through

mechanisation, more were created to take their place. But now, with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robots developing at exponential speed, it really looks like the future of ‘leisure’ could be a reality.

A

future

that

is

increasingly

computerised might make it more likely that a lot of menial jobs will be replaced by AI and robots. This could be a severe problem, if people are not trained and ready to take up alternative models of employment. But if we are ready, then those new jobs are likely to be a lot more creative and interesting. They have to be, as they will be about all the things that AI cannot do. The drive towards increasing computerisation is not something that people are really choosing. AI and robots are, after all, products of Privatopia and Cornucopia. With a system of Parapolity and Parecon in place, we might make different choices — pushing towards more employment rather than less. The idea that we will ever be completely free of work may be just a fantasy. But we might choose to go with the technology and accept where it leads —

including the reduction of drudgery — but with other impacts into the bargain. Also it is helpful to think of pleasure being transformed into passion. If we have passion for the things we do then it starts to become irrelevant whether 325

Utopia Governance and the Commons we call this work, labour or leisure.

Matthew Fox ( Original Blessing) tells us:

‘If we savored more, we would buy less. We would be less compulsive, less unsatisfied. We would also work less and play more, and thus open up work opportunities to the many unemployed and underemployed in our culture.

If we savored more we would communicate more deeply, relate more fully, compete less regularly and celebrate more authentically.’

What might we do with our leisure, if we choose to go there? That leads right back into the questions of abundance and pleasure we discussed above, except not for the lucky few in richer nations, but for everyone.

If Universal Basic Income is introduced, this is a further factor that will allow for fewer to need to work or to be able to work just part-time. Many of us will find ‘work’ of a different kind in our lives — even if that work is not strictly necessary for gaining us a wage or something that is essential to society, that is, not ‘labour’.

I am thinking here of the work that people put into gaining a new skill, music, writing, art, cooking and much more. There is an overlap between what is ‘necessary’ work and what is voluntary, in other words. This is illustrated in Chapter 4, where ‘labour’ belongs to the material economy, whilst ‘work’ belongs to the cultural

economy.

With

a

vocation,

the

boundaries between the two become even more blurred, until we may not even choose to go on using the terms work and labour.

As mentioned in Chapter 8, the industrial world 326

Utopia Governance and the Commons

— and now the robotic and computerised world

— has separated us from our making — from the power-to; from the freedom-to; the freedom-to-make; the freedom to re-make. The way we approach work in the future may be to gain the freedom to build our own stories and to find pleasure in work through the joys of making.

Pleasure and Business

Bringing pleasure to the worker though is only half the story. The other side of this is about bringing joy to others through what our businesses make and the services they deliver.

In the last chapter we looked at how important it is for businesses to think differently about their relationship to local communities. A business, and by implication, its workers as well as its owners, would be about bringing joy into people’s lives. And as we discussed earlier in this chapter, society’s relationship with things is a problem. Consumerism is not so much an issue about owning stuff as about the type of stuff we choose to own (or are forced into buying). There is a wonderful Youtube clip (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1-45FQM7Y) about a piano tuner who has an ambition to create a piano that is cheap enough for anyone to afford. He finds himself in a café one day, where there is only one other customer. He sits with the other customer and tells him about his ambition. The other customer happens to be an expert in business. He suggests that the cheap piano may be a bad idea. Other companies, he suggests, may then make their own cheap pianos, and there will be a race to the bottom, in creating cheaper and lower quality instruments. (A good explanation of how 327

Utopia Governance and the Commons commerce works today.) The businessman suggests instead that the piano tuner creates the best piano in the world. That is the path the piano tuner took. His venture has been successful, and now we have creations of great beauty and value that might not have existed without the work, commitment and vision of this one man with an idea.

Carnival

Consumer capitalism, and what I’ve described as Privatopia, are always trying to bring things into a system, to control things and to monetise them. The system promises us individuality but actually wants to turn us into labouring and consuming drones. Could we instead see the world as always at the point of tipping over into silliness? Let’s let the fake culture go and just laugh at the craziness of it all! Pleasure is utopia’s backlash against society’s ideologies and its stifling institutions of government and its endless cost-benefit analysis that gives the impression of control. Pleasure embraces the chaos — celebrates the chaos.

Theodore Zeldin ( Happiness) reminds us:

‘Without laughter, the precious pearl within many souls would not be revealed, the potential of Paradise would never be realised. The strongest bonds between humans are shared fantasies.’ Carnival seems to be an essential ingredient of human culture. It provides the laughter and shared fantasies of which Zeldin speaks. There is something about carnival that gives an outlet and a balance for the human soul — it helps us to remember that link between wild body, wild mind and wild soul that 328

Utopia Governance and the Commons I have been referring to throughout this book.

Sometimes carnival is a reversal of social norms, with those in authority mocked and ridiculed and the usual moral restraints suspended or reversed. This might have been the mayor, the judges or the clergy in by-gone days. We have specifically modern restraints on us in society today leading to modern ways to reverse social norms. Perhaps our oppression comes from technology. Many festivals and carnivals seem to look to nature and to simpler lifestyles now for their inspiration. This is just an impression, but I’m hoping that it’s true.

Carnival is also about celebrating what might be called ‘otherness’. The world as we experience it is ordinary and extraordinary at the same time. Within ourselves, some of us might recognise a sense of being like everyone else but also strangely different. It might feel a bit embarrassing, but carnival somehow manages to recognise and to celebrate that ‘radical otherness’ that we all share. It’s okay to be weird — everyone else is weird too! The same goes for sensuality and sexuality — over which we are so often of divided mind and divided behaviour. Carnival releases these ambiguities and allows us to be more comfortable with ourselves.

I could go on to list the many famous carnivals around the world. But instead, I want to suggest bringing carnival home. Why not add a bit of carnival to our own personal lives, first of all. And then, if we can, add carnival to our street and our neighbourhood, town or city.

329

Utopia Governance and the Commons Pleasure and Soul

We may feel embarrassed to put too much emphasis on superficial pleasure. We may feel equally embarrassed to consider pleasure as somehow spiritual. But I’d suggest pleasure is a kind of surrender — a kind of letting go — to the underlying silliness of the world. And letting go is a spiritual act of sorts. Modern science suggests that the body is all there is. Mind and consciousness are relegated to rather inferior positions and soul is laughed off as a rather quaint superstition. Meanwhile, people with a leaning toward spirituality might suggest that the body does not ‘contain’ the mind or the soul

— the soul contains the body, so the spiritual is the wider context in which everything else resides. In terms of pleasure then, the key to pleasure is a happy soul. I’m not saying that caring for mind and body are not also worthwhile, but I hope that setting that within a wider, more spiritual context might help. We could draw even larger circles of human

‘economies’, which represent soul and the grace and beauty that come to us from the wider universe.

Paul Bloom ( How Pleasure Works) makes an argument for pleasure derived from the essence of things, places and people. He holds back from suggesting that the ‘essence’ of a person is equivalent to soul (that would be academic suicide) yet I cannot help but feel these ideas align. Letting go, for the soul, is to surrender to the pleasure that is always brimming out there in the world. It is to let go of pretensions and false dignity and accept ourselves — strange and fallible, but nonetheless gloriously human.

330

Utopia Governance and the Commons It is to relax in our own skins, to relax in nature and just spend time being, rather than burning out with all our frantic doing. The pleasure of the soul is about the celebration of being over doing.

Beauty, Slowness, Silence and

Peace

If I were to think about what pleasure means for me, then these four things would be high on the list — beauty, slowness, silence and peace.

Beauty is found in nature, first and foremost, but also in the things we make — buildings, clothing, tools, and all the simple things that we use every day. The best enjoyments are the slow and settled things in life, slow food, slow drinks, long conversations late into the night. It need not mean, necessarily, that everything is literally slow. It might be better to describe this as everything having its own appropriate pace, and for humans to have the wisdom to find that pace. But yes, at the moment that often means slowing down. As the old proverb says, the human soul moves at the speed of a slowly walking camel. Take, for example, this quote from the Slow Food Manifesto:

‘[The 20th] century, which began and has developed under the insignia of industrial civilisation, first invented the machine and then took it as its life model. We are enslaved by speed and have succumbed to the same insidious virus: Fast Life, which disrupts our habits, pervades the privacy of our homes and forces us to eat fast foods. To be worthy of the name, Homo sapiens should rid himself of speed before it reduces him to a creature in 331

Utopia Governance and the Commons danger of extinction.’ Elsewhere, the Slow Food Movement says: ‘a firm defence of quiet material pleasure is the only way to oppose the universal folly of Fast Life.’ It proposes instead, ‘many suitable doses of guaranteed sensual

pleasure

and

slow,

long-lasting

enjoyment.’

Silence can be the absolute silence of a night spent in the mountains or a desert, but it can also be the gentle rhythms of everyday life; the town square; the café; the beach front. Silence therefore should not be taken too literally. It is helpful to contrast ‘noise’ — that is, unwanted intrusion — with ‘sound’, which can be the welcome

sounds

of

nature,

music

and

conversation.

Peace is to be at peace within one’s own mind and to have peace in all our dealings with the world; family; friends; work; neighbourhood; government; nation; and between nations.

Put beauty, slowness, silence and peace together, and we often come to a modern concept of simplicity. As we’ve noted earlier, simplicity means more than just the absence of material things. The word has been adopted recently to mean a whole set of principles.

Duane Elgin tells us more about the modern concept of simplicity. He is worth quoting here in full:

‘Simplicity keeps our eyes on the price of what matters most in our lives — the quality of our relationships with family, friends, community, nature and cosmos. Simplicity yields lasting satisfactions that more than compensate for the

fleeting

pleasures

of

consumerism.

332

Utopia Governance and the Commons Simplicity leans towards a more relaxed relationship with life. Simplicity celebrates the beauty and intelligence of nature’s designs.

Simplicity reveres the wisdom of silence that

“speaks with unceasing eloquence”. Simplicity removes needless clutter and complexity and celebrates the beauty in life. Simplicity fosters the sanity of self-discovery and freedom from secondary distractions.

‘Simplicity is not sacrifice. Sacrifice is a consumer

lifestyle

that

is

overstressed,

overbusy, and overworked. Sacrifice is investing long hours in work that is neither meaningful nor satisfying. Sacrifice is being away from family and community to earn a living. Sacrifice is the stress of commuting long-distances and sitting in traffic. Sacrifice is the loss of quiet and the subtle sounds of nature. Sacrifice is nature hidden behind a stream of billboard advertisements. Sacrifice is the smell of the city stronger than the smell of the Earth. Sacrifice is no longer seeing the heavens in the night sky because if light pollution. Sacrifice is carrying more than 200

toxic

chemicals

in

our

bodies,

with

consequences that will cascade for generations ahead. Sacrifice is a dramatically diminished and impoverished range of life, both “plants and animals”. Sacrifice is the loss of a relatively calm climate and the growth of extremes in droughts, heat waves and storms. Sacrifice is the loss of opportunity for soulful encounter with others. Sacrifice is feeling divided among the different parts of our lives and unsure how they work together in a coherent whole.

‘Consumer lifestyles offer lives of sacrifice where simplicity offers lives of opportunity.

Simplicity creates the opportunity for more time with family and friends, cultivating ones

“true gifts”, and contributing to the community.

Simplicity also creates the opportunity for greater fulfilment in work, compassion for 333

Utopia Governance and the Commons others, feelings of kinship with all life, and awe of living in a living universe. I find it ironic that a life-way of simplicity can take us into an opportunity-filled future and yet is often portrayed in the mass media as primitive or regressive and pulling back from opportunity.’

Duane Elgin — Simplicity — A Cool Lifestyle for a Hot Planet. An essay in Gaian Economics —

Living Well within Planetary Limits So, those are my ‘different pleasures’. To me, their opposites would be — ugliness (accepting the destruction of nature and the compromise of our townscapes for the sake of expediency), frenzy, rush, multi-tasking, deadlines, noise, strife in personal relationships, arguments at work, confrontation in politics, trade wars, nuclear deterrents, terrorism. But if people choose to have a world of speed, noise, fast food and tabloid culture then that really does seem to be a problem that is very difficult to address without getting us back to the worries over elitism we met at the head of the chapter. And with

the

concerns

over

climate

change

suggested

in

Elgin’s

quote

above,

and

throughout this book, this is a major problem. I have to say I find this the most challenging issue to solve. Pleasure seems to cut deepest when we are looking at alternatives for society.

I hope my thoughts on connection, compassion and different pleasures in this chapter have helped to show there are alternatives to just saying we cannot do anything other than just go with whatever people seem to be choosing. I can only leave it there, and let the reader draw their own conclusions.

334

Utopia Governance and the Commons 13. A Wider Commons

‘If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.’

Lao Tzu

‘The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things.’

Rainer Maria Rilke

Up to this point I have restricted our discussion to more or less the way the world is now. I have given the name Privatopia to this world.

We have touched on alternative utopias in the Introduction and in Chapter 2. There we looked at two main contenders for a future better world

— Ecotopia and Cornucopia.

We’ve noted that people can be disengaged and 335

Utopia Governance and the Commons cynical about the current state of politics. Our disengagement might indicate stagnation, but I’ve suggested that this does not mean that things will not change. Rather, it means that the current Privatopia will stumble blindly into a version of Cornucopia, that the advocates of a high-tech future and the benefactors of neo-liberalism have in mind. It might be Cornucopia for the few and crumbs for the rest. So if we do nothing, change will happen without us. If we want to stop this, then we need to get involved.

There is a difference between stumbling into the future and living it more consciously. If society is to adopt a new vision for its future then it means all citizens — or at least, a good many —

taking time out to think about what the options might mean, and what they have to offer us. So in this chapter, I want to ask in more detail, what it might be like to live in one of these future worlds.

Education

Let’s ask then, what it would take to change from the path we seem to be on? I can only comment briefly on education and only with reference to the UK. Two distinct trends seem to be prevalent. One trend, which may or may not be beneficial, is that young people are being taught to question. Social media, and the internet generally, has contributed to this trend.

We can all search for answers now, but this has led to a certain amount of disrespect for experts and a tendency to question the truthfulness of a lot of what we see and hear. Questioning and searching for answers is to be encouraged, of course, but the attitude behind such enquiries is equally important. Character then, is needed —

336

Utopia Governance and the Commons character enough to discern what is reasonable and acceptable from what is suspect.

The second trend in education is simply to prepare for working life. The commodification of learning and the insistence on league tables, progress and results, just sends out the message that education is a tick-box exercise. I cannot help but feel that this then continues into the workplace and adds to the stress and dullness of modern life. Whilst this might seem pragmatic, the issue here is that working life is just a continuation of whatever direction society is taking. And at the moment this suggests that employment is just a means of gaining money for a private life that may take little or no account of compassion for others, concern for local communities and care of nature. Preparing young people for employment then, implicitly reinforces the message that living this private life is what being an adult consists of, and that there are no reasonable alternatives.

We need closer links between education, industry and community. We need less focus on qualifications. We also need knowledge for its own

sake

and

to

encourage

curiosity,

imagination and creativity. It is character that is required to see the benefit of education for its own sake and for the wider application of knowledge in society; not just the narrow focus on a job and money. At the very least, we need to imagine the directions future work might take and focus on this. We need to encourage young people to seek vocations. Education may change to ‘the four C’s’ — Critical Thinking, Communication, Collaboration and Creativity.

(This is offered as an alternative to the three 337

Utopia Governance and the Commons R’s, of Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. An alternative version of ‘to read, to reason, and to recite’ was given by Louis P. Bénézet. By recite, he apparently meant having a true grasp of language and not just repeating by rote what was offered by the tutor.)

Science and Technology

A lot of technology has its own momentum; that is part of the reason why Privatopia is changing.

That is the downside of Privatopia; if no-one intervenes, then technology will just plot its own course. The very nature of Privatopia — as a world where no-one much bothers about their surroundings except as immediately affecting themselves — leaves society open to this slow but accelerating drift towards technologies that we may neither want or need. As has been said so often, just because something can be done does not mean it should be done. Technology seems to be leading the way instead of us choosing the way. This is especially true of the Cornucopian view of the future, discussed below. I do not especially blame scientists for creating this situation. Science, like every other branch of human endeavour, needs input from society at large; it needs to be set within a moral context; it needs to have a human face.

Industry might however be a bit more culpable.

Why Privatopia will not Work

Privatopia, what I am considering as our current situation, certainly has some advantages. That sense of independence, privacy and individuality is very appealing, and sometimes anonymity is a 338

Utopia Governance and the Commons great asset, especially with regard to freedom.

We can think particularly of women from rural backgrounds

moving

to

cities,

and

the

independence that money can bring to us.

Privatopia,

and

our

developed

societies

generally, would be fine if the world were infinite, or there were only a few millions of us instead of several billion. Two main problems prevent Privatopia, and indeed all of our utopias, being equally valid options and these are climate change and the limits of our material resources — the limits to growth. The reality of climate change is not something that we still feel the need to dispute — it is a given. The questions that remain are really about how quickly changes will occur and how extensive they will be. Privatopia, as we have seen, more or less ignores the effects of climate change.

We could say that any response is re-active rather than pro-active — trying to cure the problems after the events, rather than trying to prevent the problems in the first place.

(Economics explicitly discounts the future, so our economic system itself encourages this attitude of only fixing things when they can no longer be ignored.) Sea level rise will be addressed by flood defences and/or moving settlements to higher ground. Disruption to agriculture will be met by applying more technology. Species extinction will perhaps only be addressed by saving DNA of endangered species in the hope of a future ‘resurrection’. I am not necessarily saying that therefore human civilisation is doomed. We may well survive under this scenario; capitalism may survive;

‘normal’ society may survive; but it will be a deeply impoverished world.

339

Utopia Governance and the Commons In addition to climate change, the limits to growth is the other issue affecting our shared future. A report, going by the name, The Limits to Growth was published in 1972. Around 50

years later, and whilst its predictions over the growth of population have proved accurate, almost none of the concerns raised about shortages have so far turned out to be true.

Likewise, concerns over running out of oil — so called ‘Peak Oil’, where the rate of new discoveries is overtaken by demand — have been eclipsed by oil and gas obtained by non-conventional means. Economists point out that a scarcity of any particular material (or a particular source of a material) will inevitably lead to an increase in price. The price increase will, in turn, lead to the market seeking alternatives to whatever resource is proving scarce and expensive. By this reasoning, renewable energy will eventually replace fossil fuels, simply as a result of the increasing expense and scarcity of the latter. At the time of writing, there is particular concern over Cobalt, a key ingredient of lithium-Ion batteries.

These are the batteries that power a vast range of devices, from mobile phones, cameras and laptops to electric cars. Cobalt itself is mined mainly in the Democratic Republic of Congo, often under appalling conditions, and often by children. (Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries —

no Cobalt — are a possible successor to Lithium-Ion batteries.) There is also concern over the supply of Indium, the element used in Indium Tin Oxide, that allows touchscreen panels to function. Aside from Cobalt and Indium though, it may well be that the economists are correct, and there will always be sources of materials, or alternative materials that allow for growth — in 340

Utopia Governance and the Commons economic terms, at least — to continue unabated. Indeed, bizarrely, even tackling climate change itself can be a source of economic growth. In Privatopia, we simply turn a blind eye to all this, much like a former age of Europeans, who ignored the source of products reaching them as a result of the slave trade.

A vast source of new raw materials, of course, lies within our grasp. Whilst it has taken many decades, it is starting to look like space exploration is beginning to get seriously underway. Capitalism, as we have said, progresses

by

converting

commons

into

commodity. A massive new source of commons awaits, such that there have already been calls for the solar system to have some kind of legal protection — even to be declared a commons.

Who knows, in 300 years time, we may be facing another ‘limits to growth’ and start to look at other solar systems. I am positive about exploration, but still, these next few decades back on Earth are critical.

I mention this with some hesitation. I am hesitant because many caring people look with horror at the moves to colonise the moon and Mars, and to launch ever more satellites into space. Their concern is that we neglect our Earth-bound problems of ecological collapse, climate change, pollution, poverty, and so on, by looking to space. But whilst I have some sympathy with this view, still, I disagree. In the long-term, we need to explore space.

Optimists — including the Cornucopians, as we will see — regard developments in space as part of the ‘solution’ to the limits to growth. But 341

Utopia Governance and the Commons remember that almost all of this new material will be used back here on Earth. As such,

‘solving’ our problems with regard to energy and/or resources, inevitably puts even greater pressure on the biosphere. Our future expansion into the solar system will be a continuation of capitalism and if we are to manage it correctly we need to avoid it becoming another Tragedy of the Commons on an even grander scale.

Climate change, and all the problems associated with it, will not be solved in the next few decades by developments in space. In the longer term though, space exploration may change societies and humanity immensely.

There are only a few clear voices in these matters, who embrace change and technology, but keep a clear eye on what we’re doing with our environment. I mention here, Bill Nye ( Unstoppable) and Bob McDonald ( Measuring Earth with a Stick).

Can the Future be a Cornucopia?

What then, of those who give a much more positive narrative of the future? What about a story where, not only do we not have to give up any of the enormous benefits that we have from living in a modern technologically-advanced society, but things will keep on getting better?

It’s a very appealing story, and as I’ve said elsewhere, it is almost the default story of our culture — the natural extension of Privatopia; the underlying promise of capitalism. People who

promote

such

a

view

are

called

Cornucopians.

Cornucopians love to show graphs of how all aspects of human life have been steadily 342

Utopia Governance and the Commons improving, and they suggest that there is no reason why these improvements will not continue indefinitely. The matter of limits, which could bring progress crashing to a halt, is either not considered or otherwise just seen as solvable via technology. Those other graphs —

the ones that show the rise in greenhouse gases, the rise in sea levels, the increasing speed of melting glaciers and ice caps, the loss of species, the loss of natural habitats — these graphs are seen as reversible, again, usually by means of technology.

The Cornucopians have ‘facts’ to back up their proposals. There is plenty of ‘evidence’, as we have

seen,

to

say

that

growth

and

improvements to human well-being are on an upward trajectory, and this leads to an apparently logical, but erroneous, conclusion, that this trend will continue. There is plenty of evidence that technical fixes would work, provided that consequences aren’t scrutinised too closely.

One idea, for instance — one of a number of solutions known as ‘geo-engineering’ — is to seed the stratosphere with chemicals, in order to reflect more sunlight back into space and thus cool the planet. The problem with such ideas is that they layer more and more technical fixes on top of each other, until we become entirely dependent on artificial means of sustaining ourselves. So, there are technical fixes to address the consequences of geo-engineering (acidity of the oceans is one consequence) and then more fixes to address more consequences, and so on. A similar pattern is repeated for other areas of concern, such as agriculture, 343

Utopia Governance and the Commons health care and species depletion.

Cornucopia does not really have a need for a supporting narrative, because it is already the dominant narrative of modern Western culture (and increasingly of world culture). We believe implicitly in progress and growth. Cornucopia, likewise, has no need for political change. The current systems admirably serve Cornucopia’s aims. We are however, despite our affluence, on something of a treadmill. The culture wants us hooked up to our mobiles, laptops and PC’s, either working or buying. It is a world of increasing stress, with endless things trying to grab our attention, so that we keep viewing, liking, clicking, reviewing and most of all, spending. It is a bubble world, abstracted from its ultimate reliance on the natural commons, on which it nevertheless must rely. The financial economy and Artificial Intelligence are prime examples of modern culture completely un-tethered from the real world.

We might well ask if AI and robots will seek to replace the social commons that I have tried to shed light on in this book. At the time of writing, it does not look too promising (or, threatening, depending on your perspective here). If the reader has ever tried to have a conversation with a ‘chatbot’ then they will know it can be somewhat uninspiring. (I usually start by asking them to explain Kant’s categorical imperative, and the discussion does not go well.

Then again, this conversation-starter doesn’t work too well with humans either.) We would perhaps be needing consciousness before any kind of relationship with AI becomes meaningful.

And could we ever tell if consciousness has 344

Utopia Governance and the Commons really been reached, or is just being faked?

Another symptom of Cornucopia’s troubles is the paradox of individualism being valorised, but also seen as deeply threatening. Darren Anderson warns:

‘In the future, of which we are already a part, to be private, amongst many other things, may be deemed an anti-social, radical act. Solitude may become a vice. Privacy may be monetised into being a preserve of the rich and well-connected. We will realise the precious nobility of anonymity when it is gone… To maintain a position of sovereign free-thinking individual, and further, to connect with others, will be an active threat. This is at the heart of the dystopias.’

This is the strange paradox of modern life.

Community, sharing and solidarity seem to be promoted, but the way these things are manifested is an odd cult of individuals. We are not really shaping community at all, we are just enduring a fantasy of connection whilst living increasingly isolated lives. Meanwhile, any genuine community is difficult to achieve —

Western culture has just not raised children who can cope with its demands. Community is an artform that we have largely forgotten.

Cornucopia is a world that is already happening.

The ‘lucky’ ones will be safe, but I cannot help but feel there will be a massive underclass who will not be so lucky. As Anderson suggests, Cornucopia, if it were to succeed, will be a utopia for the few and a dystopia for the many.

That dystopia could leave us to be neo-liberal drones — institutionalised, separated from our 345

Utopia Governance and the Commons making, our doing, and our wild selves, plugged in, by default, to a society that keeps us slaving for things we do not need and cannot afford, and watched over by an increasingly paranoid and over-bearing state.

It need not be so bad for Cornucopia though.

One thing they have in abundance is hope. As I write this in 2020, there remains perhaps a window of a few years when we may solve our climate problems without having to resort to high-tech solutions. As mentioned in Chapter 9, on

nature,

such

things

as

regenerative

agriculture and permaculture (including ocean permaculture) along with re-forestation and re-wilding, could well be enough to bring the Earth back into balance. Such ideas take up the positivity of the Cornucopians, and combine them with the respect of nature and care for the planet of the Ecotopians.

Is Ecotopia Enough?

Solving the ecological crisis and addressing issues of sustainability by Earth-bound means, is the province of another of our utopias —

Ecotopia. As we’ve seen throughout this book, climate change and ecological sustainability are the major challenges facing the world today. So the Ecotopians are addressing issues of critical importance. There are some signs of hope, as of this writing. There is a general acceptance that climate change is really happening. The use of renewable energy is growing rapidly. There are moves towards more vegetarian and vegan diets, and reductions in the use of plastics. But there is a lot still to do. The general trend in our problems is that things are getting worse.

346

Utopia Governance and the Commons Ecotopia, as we have touched on elsewhere, covers a broad range of ideas. Here we are looking especially at what kind of future Ecotopia envisages.

Some see the collapse of capitalism, or its deliberate destruction, as a necessary first step towards a sustainable future. Others see a dramatic change in climate — a tipping point being crossed — as the key factor. In response to those suggestions, I simply repeat my earlier message — be careful what you wish for. Both of these scenarios are risks that we face, not events that we should be welcoming. Both would bring chaos and a considerable level of suffering. What we need to focus on instead is the gradual transformation of capitalism to an economy that has kindness and compassion at its heart. In a similar vein, provided climate change is gradual, then we can adapt as necessary, and find ways to bring things back into equilibrium.

Charles Eisenstein ( Sacred Economics) thinks that consumer capitalism has more or less run its course. As physical resources dwindle, our economic system will be forced to change and a

‘gift economy’ will re-emerge. In the meantime, any efforts that we might make to thwart capitalism — sharing our work and gifts outwith the moneyed economy — Eisenstein sees as worthwhile preparation for the future. Eco-village and co-housing projects, which often try to recreate the type of reliant communities Eisenstein favours, he sees as ‘ritual’. They are an

outworking,

in

micro

form,

of

the

transformation that all of society must one day make. Whilst I admire Eisenstein’s vision, I 347

Utopia Governance and the Commons don’t think we should be waiting around for the future to happen to us. As I’ve said above, premising these changes on the collapse of capitalism is not a very helpful message, even although Eisenstein makes his case in otherwise largely positive language. I’m not so sure there will be such a crash of capitalism, as Eisenstein suggests, and if it were to happen, I am sceptical that a gift economy would naturally emerge. It seems more likely that the capitalist world would simply be rebuilt — perhaps in an improved form, but not necessarily that much different. If that fails to happen, the alternative is likely to be chaos.

Like Eisenstein, Ecotopians generally do their best to paint an encouraging picture about the changes we need to make. On the political front though, there is a focus on the small-scale, or politics is simply not mentioned at all. The changes we require to make however, are difficult and painful. Sacrifice is required now, and most of us will not live long enough to see the benefits of these sacrifices take effect — it is for our children and grandchildren. Also, the Ecotopians are up against the problem that everyone asking for changes in society faces —

people are not convinced by facts and do not even really listen. This is especially true when it comes to climate change. The natural tendency of all of us is to deny information that challenges our current way of life (especially if that way of life is comfortable).

Having said that, ‘sacrifice’ is a relative term, as we touched on in the last chapter. Perhaps it is wrong to see the sacrifice being about giving up material things or a particular lifestyle. If we 348

Utopia Governance and the Commons find different pleasures, then it might be that

‘sacrifice’ need hardly be sacrifice at all. Gandhi spoke about sacrifice in relation to worship. If we become worshippers of something different, then our sacrifice will likewise mean something different. Imagine if we became worshippers of beauty, pleasure, silence, slowness and peace (as many of us secretly are). Our sacrifices may indeed sometimes be material or financial, but that will not be their main focus. Perhaps I am stretching Gandhi’s meaning a bit here, but if beauty, pleasure, silence, slowness and peace are our worship, then our sacrifices would be in order to achieve these things in our lives and in society at large. This interpretation shifts the focus away from ‘giving things up’ and towards investing in what we really treasure in life.

Addressing climate change has taken two distinct forms — mitigation and adaptation.

Until very recently, mitigation measures have been along the lines of saving energy and changing to renewable sources of energy generation. Recently though, we have been starting to see non-conventional ideas such as geo-engineering and direct carbon capture. In the previous section, we saw some suggestions along the lines of changing our agricultural practices

and

restoring

and

protecting

wilderness. Such things are the bridge between mitigation and adaptation. They could balance the climate and they could fortify Earth’s eco-systems — giving them, and us, resilience into the long-term future. This seems to be a message that does not look for catastrophe to give us a new start and is not asking people to face severe austerity in order to save the planet.

Those

already

practising

regenerative

349

Utopia Governance and the Commons agriculture, for instance, are seeing higher yields and therefore higher profits than their

‘conventional’ farming competitors with their pesticides and fertilisers. I’m not saying it will be that easy, but I’m saying that, whilst there are difficulties, there are always reasons for hope.

Society will need to weather storms to be in balance and that balance will be an ongoing struggle to maintain. But, in the spirit of this book, the alternative story can also be a story about pleasure. The alternative story could be about beauty, silence, slowness and peace. It could be about grace, kindness, conversation and humour. It could be about art, celebration and carnival. It could be about radical otherness and generosity of soul. We could combine the optimism of the Cornucopians and the care of the Ecotopians to forge a new story.

In essence this, along with a new respect for the commons and a new approach to polity, is the root of our new story.

350

Utopia Governance and the Commons 14. What We Might Decide, If We Could Decide

‘There is one thing stronger than all the armies of the world; and that is an idea whose time has come.’

Flyer for ‘Nation’ 15th April 1943 (from Victor Hugo)

‘Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.’

William Shakespeare — Measure for Measure My purpose here is to give a brief summary of ideas that have been raised in earlier chapters.

Where we find ourselves, in most nations, is having very little say over anything, except via a vote every few years for a political party that 351

Utopia Governance and the Commons might or might not reflect our views. If a system of participatory politics — Parapolity —

were adopted, in whole or in part, then we would undoubtedly have a lot more say.

Likewise,

if

a

People’s

Parliament

were

established as an additional house in our governance system (or a replacement for the House of Commons/ House of Lords/ Senate/

House of Representatives) then again we would be given a stronger voice. What happens then would be up to us, and to an extent we would get

the

kind

of

government

that

our

participation, or lack of participation, deserves.

So, this chapter contains only suggestions, especially for the four areas that I have been concerned with in Chapters 9 to 12 — nature, place, compassion and pleasure. In considering these issues in this summary chapter, we will return again to five of our six key questions: Who decides? What do we own? What should we share? What should we make? How should we trade? We will touch a little on the sixth question — How should we live? — but that question will mainly be the subject of the next chapter.

Who Decides?

A simple approach to politics might be to seek to learn what people really want. But, what if the things people say they want are things that will cause harm to others or to the planet? Who decides? The main proposal of this book is that we need to broaden the base of decision-making and allow everyone, so far as possible, to have a voice in governance. I referred to this as radical devolution in Chapter 5, and I believe that 352

Utopia Governance and the Commons existing political structures in most countries could accommodate such a process without any sweeping changes being required.

Closely related to radical devolution is the principle of subsidiarity (and the similar idea of

‘municipality’). Subsidiarity is a tricky word with a simple meaning. It means that decisions relevant to a particular location are made in that location, whilst decisions that have national or international relevance are made by the wider circles of government. Again, this does not seem like too big a stretch for existing government structures.

Sociocracy is a governance system that aims to allow everyone an equal say in decision-making.

Chapter 6, Community on a Small Scale, provides more detail. Whilst acknowledging our human tendency towards hierarchy and power relations, Sociocracy, so far as possible, tries to balance things out and make sure that even the most humble person involved will be able to speak their mind and know that their opinions will be heard and responded to. The easiest way to describe Sociocracy is as a series of linked circles, with the wider circles having more responsibility for tasks that have the broadest impact. There will always be a reciprocal accountability between the broader circles and the smaller groups that have the more small-scale functions. It is important in Sociocracy, as in any kind of governance system, to be mindful of the vision for whatever the particular organisation is engaged with, and this will, in turn, lead to clear aims that the organisation wishes to accomplish. Being able to take a broad view, recognising vision and acting 353

Utopia Governance and the Commons responsibly towards its fulfilment, is part of each person’s progress as an individual, as well as helping the organisation to track its course and adjust its aims, as required through changing circumstances. Sociocracy is in use for businesses, charities, co-housing and voluntary groups, but not as yet, so far as I am aware, in use for any political organisations. However, its structure

and

methods

seem

entirely

appropriate for small-scale governance and it is easily scaleable for application to all levels of government. I have a sociocratic structure in mind when discussing deliberative democracy below. To the question, who decides, Sociocracy answers, everyone.

In Chapter 7, Community on a Large Scale, we looked at a form of participatory politics, or Parapolity, that consists of a series of nested circles from the smallest community up to the largest national or international government.

The structure is very much on the lines of Sociocracy, and with the same accountability between the smaller and the broader circles of governance. In many countries, the smaller levels already exist (such as community councils in the UK) although unfortunately these currently have very little influence. Wider circles — counties, regions, nations — are represented at the moment by people elected from political parties. The smaller circles do not have the ability to decide these posts. Chapter 7 suggested that this ‘representative democracy’

has the problem that those elected officials often make decisions without referring back to their electorate. They become, in effect, an oligarchy.

354

Utopia Governance and the Commons The type of Parapolity envisaged would allow for the broader circles to be chosen from the smaller circles of local government, and could wholly or partially replace the current system of elected officials. I am suggesting then that something such as a People’s Parliament could sit alongside elected officials as an intermediate step to Parapolity being fully implemented.

Parapolity then, is not an all-or-nothing suggestion. If many or most people choose not to be involved then representative government would continue much as it is today in most nations. If, however, folk find a benefit from participating in local politics then the scale-up to a People’s Parliament is entirely possible.

A further idea discussed in Chapter 7 is to form Citizens’

Assemblies,

with

representatives

chosen randomly from the whole community.

The Citizens’ Assemblies may be temporary measures, for specific issues, but may also become a further and more permanent estate of government and possibly replacing one of the existing houses — to make another form of People’s Parliament. This would be a house where the delegates are chosen by lot — a process known as ‘sortition’ — and take up a role in governance for an extended period —

perhaps

two

or

three

years.

Citizens’

Assemblies and People’s Parliaments are both forms of deliberative democracy. They take power away from political parties and protect against the kinds of vested interests, dodgy deals and favouritism that can be the bane of party politics. We would get the kind of government we deserve. To the question of: Who Decides? Parapolity, a People’s Parliament and Citizens’ Assemblies answer: Everyone 355

Utopia Governance and the Commons decides — if they want to.

What do we Own? What should

we Share?

The questions of what we own and what we should share were discussed mainly in relation to the commons. Critical to an understanding of the commons and the use of land is the shift from taxing earnings to relating taxation to our shared use of land and other aspects of the natural commons. Chapters 4 and 8 looked at a Land Value Tax (otherwise called a Community Land Contribution) as a possible replacement for local taxes and even for income tax. There may be incentives for uses of land that the local community considers beneficial. Where a land use seems necessary but potentially detrimental to local residents then some of the Land Value Tax may go directly to those neighbouring households. All such matters rely on the efficient working of Parapolity, especially at the smaller levels, so then the ‘owners’ of land and property recognise themselves as custodians with a responsibility to local people and local nature.

Sometimes what I’m suggesting is described as taxing capital rather than income, but this is a rather

ambiguous

phrase.

I

therefore

distinguish income from three sources. The three sources are the ‘economic rent’ already described in Chapter 3 — money from land, money from the labour of others and money from money itself. Perhaps the most obvious solution is simply the re-distribution of land.

(The most famous example is the Biblical year of 356

Utopia Governance and the Commons jubilee, when every 50th year all debts were cancelled and land and property returned to its original owners. Probably this was never actually practised — when the Jews were exiled to Babylon, their land was granted the ‘rest’ that it had failed to receive from the previous several hundred years.) But to physically re-distribute property in this way would be horrendously difficult. The interim solution is to recognise property rights and therefore ‘ownership’ in terms of being custodians of land. Security of tenure has enormous benefits, but along with the rights derived from tenure there are also responsibilities. So taxes on land, on ‘profit’

(that is, money derived from the labour of others — arguably this genuinely is ‘capital gains’) and taxes on financial transactions seem like good means of achieving fair re-distribution, as they directly draw on the process of

‘economic rent’.

Chapter 4 considered a carbon ‘fee and dividend’

scheme as a response to the exploitation of non-renewable natural commons — oil in particular.

This would mean oil companies paying a fee into a common fund for the extraction of oil, and this money being equally distributed amongst the adult population of the host country.

Chapter 4 also considered ‘sovereign wealth’

funds as part of a wider strategy that would see those responsible for the exploitation of non-renewable natural commons and/or damage to wild

nature

recompensing

those

directly

affected. (Sovereign wealth funds and fee and dividend schemes are sometimes referred to as

‘pre-distribution’, in contrast to re-distribution.

The idea is that we all have a right to the 357

Utopia Governance and the Commons commons, therefore our wealth should come directly from there, rather than from the proceeds of those who have exploited the commons — often to the detriment of other people and the environment.)

Chapter 6 suggested local currencies as a means of keeping wealth within communities. This ties in closely to the relationship of business and the places where they are based.

Chapter 8 considered the introduction of a tax on financial transactions — known as a Tobin Tax.

Chapter 8 also suggests splitting up the banks so there is no longer a problem of financial institutions that are ‘too big to fail’. Bringing money back closer to its links with goods and services means that the false economy of financial speculation — derivatives, hedge funds and the like — can be dismantled. Making banking more local and personal will mean that local businesses will benefit most. Returning banking to being a service will benefit everyone and not just the few. Taxing the dividends received from shares is another possibility.

Another idea in Chapter 8 is money that is devalued over time, so could, for instance, require some kind of stamp attached to it in order to bring it back up to its nominal value. Chapter 8

also suggested a minimum duration for the ownership of shares so that shares could go back to being genuinely about supporting business rather than a casino lottery on the variations in share prices and currencies. A further idea in Chapter 8 is to stop creating money by borrowing it into existence. The 358

Utopia Governance and the Commons private loan, for instance, is often for the purchase of land and property — it is not a loan against the future increase in production, as the borrowing of money was once understood to be about. Borrowing, as it occurs today, tends to increase the value of land and property and adds to disparities in wealth. Instead governments could create wealth by investing in large infrastructure projects for the public good

— a concept known as ‘sovereign money’. In answering the question of what we own, the commons and Parapolity suggest that we are all owners. We need to spread that wealth rather than allow it to be appropriated by just a few.

In Chapter 8, and elsewhere, we also looked at alternative

business

structures

such

as

businesses run as co-operatives. I hope that the message got through there that owning is less important than what we do with what we have and how we share with others. Businesses have a responsibility in their use of the natural commons, their relationship to wild nature, to their local communities and to their employees.

Co-operatives that share their profits seem like an obvious step as part of meeting these responsibilities.

Chapter 11 considered that it is inappropriate for wealthier nations to be lending money to poorer ones, then allowing those nations to fall into debt trying to pay off such loans. More genuine means of helping poorer nations need to be strengthened, whilst existing debts could be cancelled.

In Chapter 11, we also looked at the free movement of people. If we were really serious 359

Utopia Governance and the Commons about alleviating poverty then the world would have no borders. I recognise, of course, the chaos that would be unleashed for wealthy nations and indeed for poorer nations that might lose their younger, brighter citizens through economic

migration.

Nonetheless,

free

movement is part of a vision for a fairer world and an aim that could be implemented gradually. The developed world has massacred, raped and pillaged its way, as it ‘colonised’

poorer nations, and the big businesses of developed nations continue that pillaging today.

In asking what should we share, co-operatives, free trade and free movement answers that we have a responsibility of giving every citizen of the world an equal opportunity for dignity, for education and for work. And Parapolity answers that we have a responsibility to share the resources of the natural commons and the benefits of our work equitably with everyone.

What Should We Make? How

Should We Trade?

A participatory economy, or Parecon, is very much a follow-on from the kind of Participatory Politics described earlier in this chapter. In the absence of a Parecon, we have, for the most part, a market economy. In Chapter 7, we noted that there is a certain overlap however, in terms

of

a

country’s

infrastructure.

Infrastructure projects are very much political decisions and it is here that a Parecon starts to have an influence, and this, in turn, starts to influence business and markets. Defence spending, power grids, railways and roads come to mind especially. From here, it is only another 360

Utopia Governance and the Commons small step towards, for instance, considering the type of heating and cooling that buildings might use, the types of vehicles that might be manufactured, where our food is sourced and how it is grown. The market economy can be transformed into a planned economy as much or as little as we are willing to allow, if we manage to install a governance system in which we can all participate and make decisions about our making and our spending. In answer to the question, what should we make, Parapolity and Parecon answer that we should make what people genuinely need and want and not what big business tries to sell us. In answer to the question, how should we trade, Parecon says, as freely as possible.

How Should We Live?

Chapter 9, on nature, looked at the possibility of returning some land to a ‘natural’ state —

sometimes referred to as re-wilding, or ‘negative development’. As humans become increasingly concentrated in cities, the opportunities for re-wilding

increase,

despite

our

growing

population.

Chapter 9 also looked at the preservation of truly

wild

land.

conserving

fully

natural

environments should be a priority, so far as this is possible.

Chapter 9 also indicates that whenever a decision process in relation to wild nature is carried out we need to have human agents who will represent nature’s ‘interests’ for her in a formal and legal sense. Someone should speak for the land, the ocean, the air, the rivers, the 361

Utopia Governance and the Commons fauna and the flora, whenever there are questions of our human activities disturbing a wild place.

Chapter 9 also suggests there is an argument for people to continue to live ‘wild’ and be exempt

from

the

normal

processes

of

government, should they wish. The chapter also considers people from ‘developed’ nations who wish to live a more ‘organic’, off-grid lifestyle.

Such people need to be given the means to allow them to adopt the kind of lifestyle they want, without having to be bound to a fixed address, a telephone or an internet connection.

In wealthy nations it seems ridiculous that there remain so many people who must just scrape by to provide themselves with even the basics of life. If part of the aim of good governance is for human flourishing, then this situation is surely wrong. We are human beings not just human doings. So arguably our societies should be about allowing people to find their full potential, whether this is through paid work or through learning or creativity or a combination of all of these. A large part of this is about giving people back their dignity. Chapters 8 and 11

considered arguments for a Universal Basic Income. Freed from the need to provide for basic survival, people are more at liberty to seek out a vocation in life. An alternative proposal discussed was ‘Universal Basic Services’, or

‘Direct Provision’, whereby the basics of life —

food, shelter, clothing and public transport —

are provided free by society, allowing people to live without money, should they wish. Rather like the ancient Charter of the Forest, Universal Basic Services seeks to provide people with all 362

Utopia Governance and the Commons the resources they need to live a dignified life.

Chapters 8 and 12 also considered arguments for a shorter working week, partly because reduced hours would be a possibility as a result of a Universal Basic Income (or Universal Basic Services) and also to address issues around increasing mechanisation, robots and AI. These ideas are not a replacement for a welfare state.

There is still a lot of care needed for people with specific health problems as well as for children and the elderly. But with UBI established and a good welfare service, we give people the opportunity to realise their full potential, to flourish and to live with dignity and self-respect.

The world seems set in its ways, and changes, if any should happen at all, need must be tiny and incremental. Indeed, changes may be for the worse rather than for the better. I remind the reader of the current mess in British and American politics — neo-liberalism taken to extremes, ongoing preparations for war, little action on pollution, little action to avert the collapse of eco-systems and little action to mitigate climate change, or to prepare to adapt to its impact. Things cannot go on like this for too much longer. I think, therefore, that big changes are imminent. In fact, my concern in writing this book has been trying to finish it before events overtook me. If we do nothing, change will overtake us anyway. But there is plenty that we could be doing, and plenty of hope for the future. I think all of the ideas I have shared in this book and summarised in this chapter are ideas whose time has come. If some (or all) of the ideas seem far-fetched then I refer the reader to Alex Evans’ The Myth Gap, 363

Utopia Governance and the Commons and in particular, his discussion of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. I also refer the reader to the UN

Convention of Human Rights.

So, to the question, how should we live, our initial answer can be with dignity and with respect for each other and for the natural world.

The more complete answer is the new story —

the alternative utopia that seems to combine all that is good in Privatopia, Cornucopia and Ecotopia and offer us a new way of seeing the world. This is the subject of our next chapter.

364

Utopia Governance and the Commons 15. A New Story

‘Your system is very good for the people of Utopia; it is worthless for the children of Adam.’

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

‘It is easy to forget how mysterious and mighty stories are. They do their work in silence, invisibly. They work with all the internal materials of the mind and the self. Beware the stories you read and tell; subtly, at night, beneath the waters of consciousness, they are altering your world.’

Ben Okri

‘Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.’

Samuel Jackson

365

Utopia Governance and the Commons

‘Possibility is not a luxury, it is as crucial as bread.’

Judith Butler

‘… we dream in narrative, day-dream in narrative, remember, anticipate, hope, despair, believe, doubt, plan, revise, criticize, construct, gossip, learn, hate and love by narrative.’

Barbara Hardy — Getting the Facts To give people information to allow them to make rational decisions might seem like a simple task. But, unfortunately, things are not so easy. We are very discriminating in the way we take in facts. We will tend to favour information that backs up our existing view of the world. (‘Confirmation bias’.) Meanwhile other information, which might not sit so happily with our world view, will just be blocked out completely.

When

we

want

to

believe

something, we ask; ‘Can I believe it?’ Any supporting evidence is likely then to justify the belief. When we don’t want to believe something, then we ask; ‘Do I have to believe it?’ Any contrary piece of evidence will then be enough to justify rejecting the belief. (From psychologist Tom Gilovich, as discussed by Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind.) In making our decisions, and arguing our corner, it is the heart and stomach that decide, rather than the brain. As philosopher David Hume said: ‘And as reasoning is not the source, whence neither disputant derives his tenets; it is vain to expect that any logic, that speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace 366

Utopia Governance and the Commons sounder principles.’ (David Hume — An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.) To make matters worse, each of us holds usually a set of contradictory opinions and even different sets of contradictory opinions for different occasions. We prize the notion of

‘authenticity’, which suggests that there is a core to our being that constitutes a genuine self, but knowing this authentic self is a difficult matter, even if we could be sure that the authentic self exists. Getting the facts straight, and trying to equip people to discern facts, is challenging, to say the least.

Added to all this we generally just run on auto-pilot, and we ‘re-act’ rather than ‘act’ when circumstances demand. All this has just happened to us — it wasn’t a conscious choice to be like this. The culture that surrounds us as we grow up is a factor in how we arrived in this state of affairs. We absorb many of the thoughts and opinions that surround us, and then count them as our own. To go against cultural norms is a difficult and potentially dangerous thing. But living within cultural norms can be stifling and suffocating.

So I am urging a close scrutiny of culture —

news, advertising, the pronouncements of politicians and religious leaders. Are they just repeating narratives that have lost their power and relevance? Or are they coming from a place of genuine compassion? Do they want people to be free to make their own life decisions and govern their own lives? Are they seeking to move us toward a new narrative? If yes, what are the motives for doing this? The number one 367

Utopia Governance and the Commons question of this chapter is — can we change the story?

From Facts to Story

Despite the difficulties considered above, we still need to deliver some facts. The commons, governance, and even visions of utopia, have to be based on reality. Facts about the world —

stating the problems we face with climate change, resource depletion, loss of bio-diversity

— need to be set in place. Beyond facts though, there are stories. Truth is not necessarily something set in stone. Truth is a journey. So stories are a way of embodying truth as it emerges and changes over time.

If anything, the problem we face is not a lack of story — it’s that we’re addicted to story. What I’ve tried to bring out in this book is that we are already surrounded by competing stories, competing utopias, of how life might be lived.

We are swayed back and forth by competing stories and we are also swayed by how stories are presented to us and who presents them.

Whose story will be heard?

Who gets heard in our society is a bit of a complex issue. It is mostly the confident, assertive and generally extrovert person who will be heard. Also the person heard, and who will be promoted or achieve other success in life, will likely be taller, white, male and ‘well presented’. Looks, charm and charisma form a natural pecking order before any concerns of ability or common sense. And then of course there is celebrity. Someone who has celebrity status seems to acquire the right to speak on 368

Utopia Governance and the Commons almost any subject and to get an audience.

How then do we go about setting a new story in place? Should we change the external circumstances so as to bring about a change in the lives of people? This is what many current governments try to achieve. They may seek to improve people’s circumstances, jobs, security, housing, transport, etc. to get happy citizens.

Happy citizens make better choices and act more responsibly. This is the current story of governance we are often offered, although we may question, of course, if this is not just a facade for what is really going on. Is it enough?

Theodore Zeldin reminds us: ‘A myth appears solid only until it is found to be absurd, soluble in water and laughter. Once it is dissolved, the facts it used to hold together are released; what once passed for truth falls apart, and it can be reconstituted afresh.’ (Theodore Zeldin —

Happiness.)

A new story is not something just invented. It is not a fantasy. It is a way to put together the facts so that they form a narrative that explains the world and gives us some guidance about how to live. Alisdair MacIntyre ( After Virtue) tells us: ‘I can only answer the question “What am I to do?” if I can answer the question “Of what story or stories do I find myself a part?”’

How we respond to stories is also a strange process, as we saw with how we respond to facts, above. It is usually for personal reasons that people will choose to adopt a new story.

Any new story then, needs to make a personal appeal.

We also, each of us, weave a story of our own lives. Which story will allow us to maintain a 369

Utopia Governance and the Commons sense of our own worth, offer us genuine pleasure, deal fairly with everyone and not trash the planet? And how can we link that to our own personal stories? That’s the quest in a nutshell.

From all of the above, I think that an appeal to our sense of our authentic selves and our hearts’

desires, needs to be part of any new story. At some point in our lives — perhaps at many points — we realise that who we are in our authentic selves is at odds with the culture that surrounds us. (Notwithstanding what was said above, I think we have to go with the notion that we believe in and want to benefit our authentic selves.) Then we can ask, how do we find the courage to live authentically rather than follow the herd? Our authentic selves look for a story of the world in which we are the heroine or hero. The key to a new story is to adopt a new way of living such that we are still the heroine and hero and not the sad victim. Stories need to inspire — to give us hope. Most important for a new story, I think, is for us to re-align where our pleasure is found. The heroine or hero is on a quest for pleasure — pleasure that makes life satisfying and worthwhile. This is the narrative that needs to be offered and the story needs to be broad enough for people to realise it in different ways.

So how do we solve this problem — presenting people with facts, and a strong argument that may be contrary to their current opinion?

Presenting people with an alternative story that may be miles away from how they currently see the world? Far from changing their minds, it is likely to result in them being even more 370

Utopia Governance and the Commons entrenched in their opinions. Perhaps there are many routes, given the variety of media at our disposal today. But I want to emphasise one key method here, and that is meeting people face-to-face, in small groups. We have seen this can influence people because we all fear being shamed. But it also has a more positive effect. Small groups can share stories, especially people’s own personal stories. This may have nothing to do with the issues that are contentious between them or about any ‘big questions’ of politics or the economy. But sometimes the sharing of personal stories can allow people to let go of their defences. The

‘solution’ to disagreements then, is often not a direct weighing up between contrary opinions.

Remember the quote from Chapter 11 — ‘Out beyond the ideas of right-doing and wrong-doing, there is a field. I will meet you there.’

Good governance is not about contesting the right-ness or wrong-ness — it’s about providing that field. Theodore Zeldin, quoted above, describes meeting a Muslim imam. The imam blasts Zeldin with his views on the decadence of Western culture. Zeldin remains silent. After a long rant, the imam hugs Zeldin warmly. Zeldin asks the imam why he has acted this way. The imam simply says, ‘because you listened’.

Every life is a story, and every relationship, friendship and family is a shared story.

Listening is the first step in building a story with another person. The story has the potential to transcend the need to be ‘right’. This might seem a few stages removed from just trying to change people’s opinions and get them to vote on a particular policy as we do in contemporary politics. But I suggest hearing people’s stories 371

Utopia Governance and the Commons is a much better way. Personal narratives, and the sharing of personal narratives are ways to build relationship and community. It is only from this that real changes — ongoing changes, relating to our changing world — can come about.

The Voice of Dissent

There is some hope already. Experiments have shown that just one dissenting voice allows others to question current knowledge, and perhaps adopt an alternative view. A new story is possible. We saw the critical importance dissent holds in the governance system known as Sociocracy. The message here is that it’s good to question and it’s okay to make mistakes. On this basis, I am happy for people to disagree with everything that follows! But, in the spirit of Sociocracy, I ask that any dissenters have good reasons for proposing their own story or for objecting to mine.

Daydreaming

Now

I

must

celebrate

the

virtues

of

daydreaming and staring vacantly into space!

Perhaps you were the child told off in school for gazing out of the window when you should have been listening to teacher. One way or another, the world sends the message that daydreamers are lazy, dysfunctional or otherwise horribly damaged. I want to offer the opposite message.

The daydreamer may eventually turn to work and achieve much more than those ‘regular’

people who seem more focused. The regular person is probably going to adopt a mindset that 372

Utopia Governance and the Commons becomes an increasingly stifling routine. The daydreamer is either dreaming or working away at some project that engages them (sometimes despite, rather than because of school). I leave it to the reader to decide which pupil will grow up to be the more interesting and entertaining.

We need more dreamers in the world, so that new stories can take hold. Otherwise we are stuck with the narrative of those ‘regular’ people that no-one seeks to question, because no-one is around to consider that the world could be a very different place.

Education Without Character

As we mentioned in Chapter 13, a style of education that encourages young people to question is something of a two-edged sword.

Has it led to a distrust of experts? Or has it led to a healthy scepticism? Perhaps both.

Questioning though, as I’ve suggested above, is a first step to being able to change to a new story. Education — whether deliberately, or by default — is instilling stories of what society is about. It could be said that education is currently only preparing young people for the jobs market, with this, in turn, allowing them to earn a living in future, and that this is sufficient.

It could be said that education is falling behind even in this role, as a world that is rapidly changing needs new types of jobs for the future.

But there is something very dubious about education based only on ‘progress’ and results.

It just apes the mindset of society that has already got us into such a mess. Children are born undivided from their wild natures. We force them into classrooms, then offices and factories, and along the way cast doubts on the 373

Utopia Governance and the Commons value of daydreaming and imagining. We are separated from our wild selves, our making, and our shared life with the rest of the planet.

What about a story of an interconnected world?

A wild nature that deserves our responsible care? A wild nature within each one of us that means we all have intrinsic worth? Community?

Beauty, pleasure, silence, slowness and peace?

Grace, kindness, conversation, humour? Art, celebration, carnival? Meanwhile Plato reminded us that the most effective education is that a child should play amongst beautiful things.

There are teachers out there who instil such values into their students. But often they are the ones who are swimming against the tide.

Our current story of Privatopia is looking for obedient drones.

Tom Hodgkinson observes:

‘One thing that depresses me greatly is the argument I hear trotted out with tedious regularity by other parents, usually said about boys. “He’d better toughen up, because it’s a tough world out there. It’s a competitive place…”. Why not say, “It’s a wonderful world out there, so let’s make him wonderful!” The solution to the world being full of arseholes is not to add to the problem by making your own son into an arsehole. Set a good example!’

Tom Hodgkinson — How to be Free.

Name your Pleasures

The suggestion throughout this book is that it is the social relations of pleasure that form the basis of any changes in society. The new story 374

Utopia Governance and the Commons is primarily a story of pleasure. In Chapter 12, on Pleasure, we looked at what this might be about. I suggested there that genuine pleasure is about taking a broader view of life, trying to see what may be for our long-term contentment and fulfilment, rather than just catching some fleeting fun or entertainments where we can.

Also, each of us being unique, it is a good thing to accept our strangeness and difference — to celebrate our radical otherness. And I added that pleasure is often about connection with others, with nature and with the wider cosmos.

So, a new story should not be a blueprint for how everyone should live. It could instead be about each of us finding our own pleasures, which will lead to our eudaimonia — our flourishing. The task of the rest of society is to facilitate this process. Getting to know another person, or getting to know ourselves better, unmasks this beautiful parallel world that we all inhabit. All relationships are shared dreams and shared stories. So let’s go where the love is.

And the starting point of love is surely to be accepted, just for who we are. We saw a deep connection between compassion and pleasure in earlier chapters. Pleasure that is about connection with others has a quality to it that transcends the material comforts that the consumer capitalist world seems to promote.

Let’s talk then about pleasures. Theodore Zeldin ( The Secret Pleasures of Life, An Intimate History of Humanity, Conversation, Happiness) has focused very much on personal encounter as the key to human flourishing and happiness.

Zeldin looks at a profusion of historic examples of how humans have organised both public and private life. His conclusion seems to be that a 375

Utopia Governance and the Commons deeper exploration of private life, through intelligent conversation with others, is the key to a better public life. He seems to feel that we have a lot still to explore — largely because, for various reasons, we have found it difficult to express our feelings or it has been dangerous to do so because of the surrounding culture.

Zeldin does not seem to have any particular notion about where a deeper conversation may lead us. He just emphasises the need for adventure and imagination. We might conclude that we are often stuck in our lifestyles because we find it difficult to speak to others about what might really make us happy. So good conversation may be a way to set us free and give us the confidence to try new things.

A new story is asking us: What are our real sources of pleasure? Naming our pleasures is a way of allowing others to name theirs. I hope that the reader at this point will drift off into a reverie about what would make life wonderful!

I’d suggest we may be surprised at just how many people share a similar desire to break free and follow their dreams. It is only convention —

the established stories about how the world should be — that keep us from our hearts’

desires. John Stuart Mill ( On Liberty) said:

‘Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded, and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric marks the chief danger of our time.’

376

Utopia Governance and the Commons Name your Fears

In Chapter 6, on small-scale community, we looked at M. Scott Peck’s idea of a ‘broken’

community and understood this to refer to an openness and vulnerability to others. That vulnerability is in large part about naming our fears. Fear is not necessarily bad — it can be a message to us that things need to change.

Instead of trying to communicate our strength and self-sufficiency, naming our fears may serve us better in realising a new story. The fear within our culture of Privatopia might be that we are missing out. Why be the person who does without a car, a mobile phone, foreign holidays, a bigger house, a higher salary? Won’t this just mean that other people — openly, or behind our backs — will consider us as weird, or sad losers, or both? (If someone says, ‘I really admire your principles’ then that’s a definite sign they think you’re weird.) But really, deep down, others may share our concerns for the future. If we speak simply and sensibly about our fears, then it will allow others to be more open about theirs.

The Current Story

Most of us in Western culture are caught in the pervading story of capitalism and what I have described as Privatopia. We unconsciously adopt the story of Privatopia and some of its assumed aims of rising consumption, economic growth, improving technology and the dominance of money. Most of us are obliged to work for money and so, as John Holloway has pointed out, participate in the reproduction of consumer capitalism. There is something skewed about us 377

Utopia Governance and the Commons as Privatopians. (I am having to include myself here — we are all in this, even whilst some of us are trying to escape.) The defeniveness of our lifestyle is increasingly vicious. The contempt for authority. The sense that one’s own opinions count far more than any expert, but also a deep resentment

if

those

opinions

are

ever

questioned. The sense of entitlement. The outrage that is felt when anything might impinge on our lifestyle or happiness. The narcissism, and inflated sense of self-worth (since, after all, there is no-one else that matters in Privatopia) is starting to be the mindset of a whole culture.

It’s tempting to say, so what? That, after all, would be Privatopia’s response to itself. But there are victims of our Privatopian lifestyle —

the nations suffering poverty because of our excess; suffering the effects of climate change because of our neglect. The future generations who will be paying heavily for the mess we have left them. The poor and struggling within the richer nations. Privatopia may seem like just the norm for those of us in these rich nations, but it is jam for the few and crumbs for the many. Privatopia’s belief in growth and improvement means that it is poised to move inexorably towards a Cornucopia, but the concern raised by this book is that both the current Privatopia and the future Cornucopia are deeply problematic.

We also adopt some of the mindset that sits alongside these aims — the power-over, power-under dynamic. Erich Fromm, in The Fear of Freedom, describes some of the characteristics of this mindset that might best be described 378

Utopia Governance and the Commons here as authoritarianism. There is an admiration for power, but also a deep hatred and envy of the powerful. At the same time there is a desire to defer responsibility to the powerful — to allow them to control us so that we can avoid thinking and deciding for ourselves. So we are ambivalent in terms of our power-under relations. Likewise we can have a contempt for those perceived as weak and will seek to dominate them, despite our hatred of authority and our wish to be controlled ourselves. So we are ambivalent in our power-over relations as well. Fromm explains how relationships (such as employer/employee and between spouses and partners) can vacillate between these different responses. Matthew Fox ( Original Blessing) adds an obsession with death to the list of strange characteristics that Western culture has adopted. We can see from this how the power-under/power-over dynamic blends so well with consumer capitalism. There is a powerful elite of the super-wealthy, whom we admire and hate in equal measure. Money itself has a position of absolute power. Many people — whilst complaining about the need to work for a living — nonetheless welcome the routine of regular work. It means we do not have to think about how we would really wish to live because, we tell ourselves, we have to earn a living. There seems to be no choice — and part of us welcomes the lack of options. As such, we tend to protect our self-interest and no other strategy makes sense in such a world.

This, I suggest, is our current story.

Much of this is entirely subconscious. The average person would probably not perceive themselves as displaying the characteristics I’ve 379

Utopia Governance and the Commons described above. So embedded are the thought patterns, and the ‘appropriate’ emotions that accompany them, that there is seldom an opportunity to spot an unusual thought or response, let alone really spend time to consider where it has come from. The many distractions of the modern world keep us locked into our cognitive dissonance — holding these conflicting values of capitalism and power relations on the one hand, and a belief in autonomy, freedom and community on the other. Fromm offers some hope by way of really knowing other people. In good relationships — whether with friends or family — deeper conversation can bring to the surface the many contradictions under which we all labour, as we have considered

above

with

Theodore

Zeldin.

Communities are a means by which deeper conversations can be facilitated. The fact that we can at least see there is cognitive dissonance

— conflicting stories in our lives — is maybe even a positive sign.

From what we have explored above, we might observe that changing the story is not going to be an option, unless there is some way out of the damaging power relations that afflict most of us one way or another. The power relations, in turn, cannot be healed (turned around to power-with, as Starhawk might say) unless we wake up to the inherent contradictions in our lives. In this

book,

sitting

alongside

changes

to

governance, we have identified the need for personal change, and noted this is often achieved through good community. Henry George (referring to socialism) summed this up well:

380

Utopia Governance and the Commons

‘The ideal of socialism is grand and noble; and it is, I am convinced, possible of realization; but such a state of society cannot be manufactured — it must grow. Society is an organism, not a machine. It can live only by the individual life of its parts, and in the free and natural development of all the parts will be secured the harmony of the whole.’

Without this belief that people individually can improve and that humanity collectively can improve, we will struggle to see any real change, no matter what systems we may try to put in place. In a similar vein, enforcing moral behaviour (through system change) does not make people better in themselves (as John Locke argued, in relation to enforcing religious belief, and Ronald Dworkin argued, more generally, for all kinds of enforcement towards a

‘better’ life). Rather, it should be the free choice of citizens to take up better values and better behaviour.

A Story of Isolation or a Story of

Trust?

Charles Eisenstein ( The Beautiful World that our Hearts Know is Possible) suggests that we carry with us a story of living a separate, atomised life in an indifferent world — what I have identified as Privatopia in this book. This story is overtly or covertly affirmed by so many aspects of Western culture — it becomes the way in which we define the self and our relationships. So most of us have been raised with an acceptance of separation. The moneyed, commodified economy has had the effect of increasing the atomisation of our lives. We have become 381

Utopia Governance and the Commons fiercely defensive of our property and our individuality without realising that this is a symptom of the isolation felt in the absence of true community. Maybe the reader feels conformable with the world the way it is with respect to the autonomy and individuality that seems to be on offer to us (and indeed the writer feels a certain comfort from it too).

Maybe the talk elsewhere of being wild in mind, body and soul seems a bit of a disconcerting alternative. Wildness can go either way. If we want to re-connect people to their own inner wildness, we had better be sure that this wildness will lead to all the good stuff described above, rather than some Mad Max dystopia.

So, we can ask: Do people genuinely wish to work at things that engage their skills and imagination and enhance life for themselves and those around them? Or, are people just out for whatever they can get with the minimum amount of work? Privatopia often seems to reinforce this second view. We are alone in the universe, nothing special, and stuck on a planet that is about survival of the fittest. This is a story of isolation. It suggests no-one is really trustworthy. We are alone, trying to fend for ourselves, in a world that is motivated mainly by selfishness. If we were to believe that most people, left to their own devices, would act only in their own selfish interests, then it is unlikely that setting them within a community context (by way of the additional circles of government, in Parapolity) will solve this and turn them into altruistic and compassionate citizens. Setting up any form of governance system — Sociocracy, Parapolity, Parecon, even a better system of representative democracy — will not work if 382

Utopia Governance and the Commons people are only out for themselves. If we were to believe that most people don’t get it — that they will not act with sufficient care and compassion to protect either their own local environment or the global environment — then a new story will not work. We could ask; even if individuals and families could be as fully informed as possible about the local and global consequences of all their choices (housing, energy, food supply, transport, etc.) then would we act responsibly? Would we respect the global commons that is the ultimate source of all our sustenance? If the answer to the questions above is no, then again, I would suggest, it is unlikely that a new story will work.

Largely because of the above concerns, the arguments against deliberative democracy are strong. They reinforce many of the concerns raised elsewhere in this work — people are biased to their own pre-conceived (or, socially-adopted) opinions, they practise group-think, strong characters tend to dominate, people are favoured (and hence, their opinions given more weight) because of their personal charm or good looks, rather than their intelligence and the strength of their argument.

John Stuart Mill thought that participating in politics might make people better, but actually, people need to be better for their participation to be genuinely effective. This is a tough message to have to deliver. We have touched on the need for people to have a bit of wisdom, personal growth, flourishing and changed attitudes to pleasure throughout the book. But still, it is difficult to suggest that people need to change before things could improve. If there is 383

Utopia Governance and the Commons no trust that others could be better then there is no hope. If however we have the capacity to trust others and to believe in others, then we have a hope of a new story.

As we have seen at several points throughout this book, there is a question here about human nature. What I’ve been suggesting above — and coming mostly from the chapters on compassion and pleasure — is that, whilst seeking our own different pleasures, we are, nonetheless, united in a quest for beauty, pleasure, silence, slowness, peace, grace, kindness, conversation, humour, art, celebration and carnival. We might also share a belief in everyone having a voice, in fairness, in freedom and also in responsibility.

There is a lot of trust built into these values. A lot of belief needed for them to be realised. It takes faith to believe that most people, once we have their trust, will respond in a positive way.

It takes faith to believe that most people genuinely have a gift they would like to bring to the world. It takes faith to believe that other people ‘get it’!

The way to prove our faith is to take action from within the new narrative. The story is changed through a million conversations and a million small acts of commoning, not by one or two defining acts of political change. So, for the new story to be a story of hope, it has to be premised on the need for us to grow a bit in wisdom as individuals and in the art of community and to make a decision to trust others and to have faith that others are trying —

in their own ways — to make a better world.

How then can we commit to a story of trust?

384

Utopia Governance and the Commons The tendency today is to wait for a feeling to

‘happen’ to us. So, if we don’t find ourselves trusting, we are not inclined to do anything about this, except perhaps acknowledge our untrusting feelings. But I suggest that some things are a decision rather than just waiting for the right feelings to emerge. We can decide to trust. And this decision may allow others to trust along with us and for the world generally to reciprocate our trust. As I’ve said above then, let’s take action from within the new narrative. Let’s behave as if the new narrative has already arrived.

The New Story

The world is a place of beauty and grace. Life is about feelings, hopes, pleasures and dreams.

We need a new story that’s about an abundance of these things. These are the things that utopias aim for, and all our studies of commons and governance are committed to allowing these things to be there, for everyone. So, here we turn in earnest to that sixth question of the Introduction — How should we live?

Finally then, we can ask, what is the big, hairy, audacious goal of our new story? What would really motivate people to adopt it? By way of contrast to Privatopia, Cornucopia and Ecotopia, I am suggesting a ‘participatory utopia’. The new story is a process rather than a destination

— it evolves as the conversation evolves. But here are some big points. The new story is about participation. Everyone is accepted, everyone has a voice, and everyone is heard.

Everyone can flourish and society is arranged with opportunities for every kind of flourishing.

385

Utopia Governance and the Commons Nature bounces back and climate change is finally addressed. This is the vision of the new story. Its mission is to realise these goals through

co-operation,

solidarity

and

conversation. The new story is known only as it is built, and it is no more or less than what we make our own lives together to be.

The new story is also about equity — and our exploration of the commons has, I hope, furnished us with some understanding of what would make for a fair and responsible distribution of the Earth’s resources — including equity for the plants and animals with whom we share the world.

The new story is about trust. To make our governance systems work, our distribution of resources more equitable, our treatment of nature more sustaining and, above all, for us to master the art of community, we need to learn to trust each other more, to forgive each other’s mistakes,

and

to

recognise

that

good

relationship is about more that just who is right or wrong.

So we have participation, equity and trust. The new story also identifies a strong need for political change, to go with the changes described above. The very first political question to be addressed is, what kind of governance system do we want? No-one has asked us this question, and we have grown up just accepting this situation, perhaps not even thinking it is a question that could be asked. It might be that people still want leaders, elected in the normal way — perhaps only asking for more honesty and accountability from our 386

Utopia Governance and the Commons politics. The alternatives considered in this work are what I have described as radical devolution, giving

power

back

to

the

grass

roots.

Deliberative democracy, by way of Citizens’

Assemblies and People’s Parliaments, could sit alongside, or fully replace, the current systems of party politics. One of the aims of the new story might be that eventually representative government in its current form will be superseded by representation of the sociocratic type and that affiliations to political parties will become

less

relevant,

if

not

completely

redundant. Likewise, as more businesses adopt sociocratic principles, the economy will be transformed from one premised on material wealth to one based on kindness, human flourishing and the abundance of nature.

The new story shares the concerns of Ecotopia about climate change and sustainability. Along with the facts about climate change, the new story recognises the need for a narrative that will inspire us to take action. We saw that the positive contribution of Cornucopia is the hope of abundance. We examined, especially in Chapter 9, the possibilities open to us, to re-wild and re-forest the Earth, and to change our agricultural practices, such that both nature and ourselves may flourish together. For a few years, at least, this is a possibility open to us, if we would only decide, or be allowed to decide, to adopt it. And this would seem to be a win-win-win situation. Winning for people, for planet and for the economy. The new story need not be about scarcity or sacrifice. Instead, it celebrates a different kind of materialism from today’s consumer capitalism. It values things for their beauty, durability, elegance, integrity 387

Utopia Governance and the Commons and the value transferred to things by the care of their makers. The new story is a story about a material world that honours making and re-making, and a natural world that is more abundant rather than less, because of the activities of humans.

The new story is also about place. We need to reclaim our neighbourhoods, towns and cities and make them places of joy and celebration.

We

need

safe,

vibrant

streets,

friendly

neighbours; places where nature can flourish; places where children are safe to play; places where we are happy to stay and just be ourselves. More than anything else, it is regulations that shape our environment —

especially our

built

environment.

Good

regulations — ones that we have all been involved in formulating — will lead to places that we will grow to love — places of which we can all be proud. The new story would give us a direct say in what the places we live in will be like, give us places where we can make a living in any way we choose (provided we are not harming others or the environment) and feel that we are treated with dignity and respect by our fellow citizens. The commons of our built environment, like that of the natural world, needs to be managed by those most closely affected by any changes that are proposed. A managed commons is only achievable through the good organisation of community — through good governance. This emphasis on place taps into our human tendency to identify with groups

— but it is an identity that we could describe as genuine patriotism — it is a welcoming and inclusive identity that celebrates everyone.

388

Utopia Governance and the Commons The new story will recognise those elements of society that are currently ignored, under-valued or neglected. We have looked especially at our being separated from our making — our freedom to make. Also, underlying the material and cultural economies, is what has been described as re-making — the reproduction of ourselves, the care of others, and all the benefits and support

of

relationships,

conversations,

mutuality and solidarity. The names, ‘social commons’

and

‘emotional

economy’

were

assigned to this aspect of our lives. We have also called it ‘commoning’ — commoning is the praxis of the emotional economy. Others simply call it love. Someone has said that freedom is ‘freedom from’, that is, it is to be free of restraints on our behaviour, so far as that is appropriate. ‘Freedom to’, by contrast, is liberty. The making and re-making that we have explored in this book is therefore the

‘freedom to’ — it is the freedom, the liberty, above all else, to build our own narratives as individuals and societies.

In a sense then, the new story takes up the promise of abundance, from the Cornucopians; only an abundance of a different sort — different pleasures. The story of abundance allows us still to be heroes and heroines, without being compromised or embarrassed by the mismatch between our lifestyle and our characters. There is always a personal reason for the stories we choose to adopt. For instance, if someone adopts a disaster narrative for the future it might suggest that it is really more about their own inner turmoil rather than about what is happening in the world. By the same token, if we can change to have a more positive view of 389

Utopia Governance and the Commons ourselves, then we are more likely to adopt a more positive view of the future. We have to raise people up as individuals first, before we can start to build better communities and better governance and so start to realise the new story. We have to trust this is possible.

A big part of this book has been to stress that all of the aims of our new story need to be achieved with others — through what I have described as the ‘art of community’. It is good to meet with people who affirm us and recognise our right to be free. This is precisely the starting point from which all notions of political arrangements and of commoning, springs. There can be shared pleasures

that

are

both

gracious

and

compassionate, satisfying the self whilst serving others.

It is tempting, at this point, to provide a checklist of things that could be done to further the ideas expressed in this book. But I’ve said that the new story will emerge through conversations

and

will

evolve

as

the

conversation

evolves,

so

it

would

be

disingenuous to be too prescriptive. The more general ideas, especially as given in Chapters 9

to 12, on nature, place, compassion and pleasure, I hope will serve as a framework for discussions.

To summarise the main points given above we can quote here from Thomas Berry, and what he described as ‘the Great Work’. The Great Work is to:

‘bring our collective material consumption into balance with the Earth to allow the healing and 390

Utopia Governance and the Commons regeneration of the biosphere.’

This requires that we:

‘realign our economic priorities from making money for rich people to assuring that all persons have access to an adequate and meaningful means of making a living for themselves and for their families.

Because equity becomes an essential condition of a healthy, sustainable society in a full world, we must:

‘democratize human institutions, including our economic institutions, to root power in people and community and replace a dominant culture of greed, competition, materialism, and the love of money with cultures grounded in life-affirming values of cooperation, caring, spirit, and the love of life.

Because recognition of the essential spiritual unity of the whole of Creation is an essential foundation of the deep respect for the rights and needs of all living beings on which fulfilment of this agenda depends, it is necessary that we individually and collectively:

‘awaken to the integral relationship between the material and spiritual aspects of our being to become fully human.’

As quoted by David C. Korten in The Great Turning — From Empire to Earth Community.

The Demise of the Current Story?

Our societies need to convert more and more of the Earth’s natural commons in order to support the

ever-expanding

needs

of

Privatopia.

Privatopia doesn’t really care how this is done, as long as the shops stay open and there is money in the bank to pay for the goods. This would not matter so much if there were just a few of us, or the world itself was limitless. But 391

Utopia Governance and the Commons there will be 10 billion of us by 2050, and the world is certainly not limitless. Privatopia is a utopia of abundance, but it is premised on a lie.

Cornucopia takes this forward into a high-tech future, but it may be a dystopia, where a small rich elite prosper, while everyone else picks up the crumbs. However, as we have seen, at least the Cornucopians offer us some hope of abundance. The Ecotopians can, by contrast, often just talk of catastrophe — all three flavours of utopia are really dystopias.

So will Privatopia — consumer capitalism, and neo-liberal economics — just keep going? Will the hopes of Cornucopia be realised? Or will the Ecotopians’ fears be realised instead? Perhaps every age believes itself to be at a turning point in history, but this time, it really may be true.

Even the most optimistic forecasts for climate change are giving us only ten years to turn things around, and it is probably a shorter period. The years from 2020 to 2025 are perhaps the most critical of any in human history. Whilst we looked at the possibilities of space exploration in Chapter 13, this is not on a scale that can do very much towards helping the problems here in Earth. Maybe, in a century or two, things will be different, so far as space is concerned, but for now, it is Earth-bound solutions that are required.

There are answers; and most of them are well within our current technical capabilities. We have seen above and in earlier chapters that we still, for a few years at least, have the opportunity of a win-win-win solution. A world that will be better for nature, better for people and, at the same time, economically viable, 392

Utopia Governance and the Commons giving us more prosperity rather than less.

Prospects for the New Story

So, what will convince us that we need a new story? Change is already in the air. It takes only a tipping point of opinion to open hearts and minds and allow new stories to become majority views. Some suggest that only 10%

turning to a new idea is enough to tip society into adopting it wholesale. Meanwhile Erica Chenoweth

( Why

Civil

Resistance

Works)

suggests that only a 3.5% swing is needed in order to overthrow tyrannical regimes. What may seem a radical viewpoint today might appear to be a self-evident truth tomorrow. A new story that brings us pleasure is what is likely to allow for positive contagion. At the moment, many of us sacrifice our time, and sometimes our sanity, to gain things that we are led to believe we should want, such as a bigger house, a better car or foreign holidays. But imagine if we became worshippers of beauty, pleasure, silence, slowness and peace. We might ‘sacrifice’ to achieve more of these things in our lives, but it’s a sacrifice to achieve even greater pleasure. We already hold views consistent with a new story. Most of us, if asked, would consider ourselves to be free.

Many would profess to believe that having a vocation is more important than having a career; that friends and family are more valuable than making money; that community matters; that life is for living; that if we do not find pleasure in our lives then we are missing the point. All of this suggests to me that we are already well on our way. The new story is not a complete turn around of our views, it is instead 393

Utopia Governance and the Commons just a stripping away of outmoded ideas, so that our hearts’ desires can be made real.

394

Utopia Governance and the Commons 16. Conclusion

‘To be truly radical today is to make hope possible, not despair convincing.’

Raymond Williams

‘I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it difficult to plan the day.’

E.B. White

‘So what is the point of Utopia? The point is this: To keep walking.’

Eduardo Galeano

‘If success or failure of this planet depended on how I am and what I do […] HOW WOULD I BE?

395

Utopia Governance and the Commons WHAT WOULD I DO?’

R. Buckminster Fuller

Way back in the Introduction, I raised three concerns. Where is the vision for a better world? Why are people’s visions for a good life so premised on wealth and materialism? And, do I really trust people? Do I trust others enough to encourage deliberative democracy, where ordinary people have a say in how our society is run? As we reach the end of our discussions, it’s time to review where things stand with those concerns and questions raised at the start.

Where is the Vision?

I hope I’ve convinced the reader that there’s a lot of vision out there. We have studied the utopias that are alive and well in our society right now and named them with the three flavours, Privatopia, Cornucopia and Ecotopia.

We could summarise the positive contributions of these utopias as follows: Privatopia —

freedom, independence, autonomy. Cornucopia

— positivity, hope, abundance. Ecotopia —

recognising that we are all one eco-system with the Earth and the wider universe. Drawing on these positive narratives and collecting ideas from many sources, this book puts forward a new story. It’s a vision for a prosperous and happy future, but also, I believe, one that is pragmatic and most of all, based on the active participation of all of us. A utopia is built together, or otherwise it is a utopia for just a few and a dystopia for the rest. Participation is the key, and along with this we need a good 396

Utopia Governance and the Commons deal of trust. And our consideration of the commons suggests that fairness — equity — is also critical. So the three big things that form the vision of a new story are participation, equity and trust.

The Good Life

Why do people envisage a good life as consisting of financial wealth and material possessions?

We explored this question through the dominant culture described as Privatopia. Some economic theories suggest that we are pleasure-seeking machines. The sources of pleasure on offer though are of the acquisitive, material kind —

the substitute pleasures of stuff. We need the stuff for our sense of who we are, because relationships have suffered and we have been driven towards seeking self-actualisation and self-esteem as ends in themselves. But this reliance on stuff as a prop for the ego is a fragile arrangement at best. It leaves people stressed and defensive, narcissistic and vulnerable.

Instead of ego plus stuff, I have suggested the alternative

pleasures

of

beauty,

silence,

slowness, peace, grace, kindness, conversation, humour, art, play, celebration and carnival.

That’s the offer of our new story. I’ve suggested that many people secretly long for these

‘different pleasures’ and a few are forging ways to realise them, through changed lifestyles. So the contrast with the materialist ‘good life’ need not be austerity. It might be termed ‘frugality’

instead — living within our means — or it might be best called ‘simplicity’ — a term we took up in Chapter 12. There we saw that simplicity represents an abundance of a different sort —

meeting genuine needs in elegant and beautiful 397

Utopia Governance and the Commons ways.

Three Utopias

We set out on this journey by considering three types of utopia — Privatopia, Cornucopia and Ecotopia. Referring back to the three utopias, we observed that the current culture of consumer capitalism is best described as a Privatopia. In Privatopia the system is accepted, either

grudgingly

or

enthusiastically,

as

inevitable. Everyone looks out for their own best interests and compassion does not extend very much beyond one’s own family. Whilst concerns over environmental destruction may be voiced, in Privatopia it is seen as something governments need to sort out. People pay lip service to this need, but if it is suggested that citizens may need to make changes or sacrifices in order to protect the environment then this is met with serious opposition.

Within Privatopia are the seeds of a future utopia called Cornucopia. Cornucopia more or less agrees that current lifestyles should not need to be compromised. The Cornucopians will point to a steady improvement in all aspects of human life over the last two centuries or so, and suggest that there is no reason why this should not continue into the future. The Cornucopians downplay the accelerating problems with the climate and habitat destruction and species extinction. A better future (at least for humans) is promised, mainly by way of technology.

Ecotopia, by contrast, is a vision that takes the environment much more seriously. Ecotopia covers a broad range of beliefs. We noted that 398

Utopia Governance and the Commons sometimes a better world is thought to come about because of the collapse of capitalism. Or it may be that future large-scale disruption to the

climate

forces

us

towards

a

more

sustainable existence. The speed of such changes is critical and it has to be said that rapid changes of the sort envisaged by some Ecotopians are likely to bring chaos to the world rather than the harmonious new existence that they sometimes promise. A slower, smoother transition, however, can only be welcomed and would be more manageable.

Ecotopians don’t often suggest political change to sit alongside the necessary lifestyle and business changes that would be needed to bring about an ecologically-sustainable world.

We’ve seen that Privatopia and Cornucopia are leading us to disaster, and that Ecotopia, by itself, seems to struggle to be realised, because of the complacency of both governments and citizens. As such, a fourth utopia, a new story, has been suggested, which takes mostly the message of Ecotopia and sits it within a political context. This is summarised below, but first let’s look at the six questions raised in the Introduction. The answers to these questions are essentially the ground for the new story that is being proposed.

Six Questions

Those six questions were: Who decides? What do we own? What should we share? What should we make? How should we trade? How should we live?

399

Utopia Governance and the Commons Who decides? Most countries have a system of representative democracy at the moment, so a small number of people make the decisions and the rest of us get only the chance of voting them into or out of office every few years. This book suggests that this is not working, especially with regard to the difficult issues facing the world around climate change.

So, we went on to consider different types of political organisations — polities. One person deciding is a monarchy or a dictatorship. All people

deciding

together

is

communism.

Everyone deciding for themselves is anarchism.

We explored anarchism in particular because it digs down to the roots of why we have politics in the first place.

The lessons of anarchism led to an alternative politics being proposed, where all citizens have the opportunity to participate in decision-making. Three particular styles of governance system

were

introduced

—

Sociocracy,

Parapolity

and

Parecon.

In

discussing

Sociocracy in particular, I stressed the need for people to recognise and focus on a vision for the particular business or organisation with which they are involved.

I suggested that Parapolity and Parecon need not be brought about by sudden change away from the current system. The measures suggested could be gradually adopted by current political systems, giving citizens increasingly greater

say

from

the

bottom

up.

Representatives from the smaller circles of governance — neighbourhoods, towns and counties — would go on to form part of national 400

Utopia Governance and the Commons governments, partly or wholly replacing party politics. Another idea is utilising such methods as Citizens’ Assemblies for specific issues and possibly having a People’s Parliament with representatives chosen by lot to form a permanent

fourth

estate

of

government,

perhaps replacing the House of Lords or House of

Commons

in

the

UK,

for

instance.

Government may then be made up of the two types of People’s Parliaments — with one house having the representatives from the counties and the second house being the citizens chosen by lot. Party politics would be at an end. As I’ve tried to stress, this is a system of reform and not a call for revolution. Also, institutions

— including the executive arms of local and national governments — would still be in place.

Indeed, these would be properly independent of the legislature, so arguably less compromised than at present.

To address the questions of owning and sharing we started out by looking at the meaning of a commons. We noted that an unmanaged commons of whatever type is likely to lead to injustice and even catastrophe. The world today, for the most part, runs as an unmanaged commons under capitalism. We explored this in relation to nature, and to the way the material and the cultural economies function. It was noted, in particular, that the economies — as well as disregarding the commons, and the issues of equity that this involves — also fail to recognise the deeper links back to nature inherent in all society and the social relations that underpin society. We observed that there are already social relations supporting the material economy (usually referred to as 401

Utopia Governance and the Commons reproduction). We noted the wider circle of social relations — giving it the name of ‘re-making’, and including care, maintenance, solidarity, conversation, friendship and intimacy.

We have variously described this as the

‘emotional economy’ (by way of contrast with the financial) or the social commons or just as

‘commoning’. Re-making though, also refers us back to all the other economies and to the commons. Our freedom is a freedom-from, but also a freedom-to, and, especially, a freedom to make. So the ‘production’ of the material and cultural economies should be part of that freedom of everyone to be fully involved with their making, and not alienated from it, as we can so often be in the capitalist economies.

Whilst

the

elements

of

commoning

(maintenance, friendship etc.) are familiar to us all, they are perhaps so close to us that we can miss their relevance. So commoning remains as yet

a

rather

woolly

concept;

it

seems

insubstantial. But if commoning were to stop then society would collapse. If, on the other hand, commoning were to increase ten- or a hundred-fold, society would be transformed.

That is the new story in a nutshell. In our discussions we have seen the relevance of culture in bringing to light our need for ‘re-making’,

for

commoning,

for

the

social

commons.

It

is

based

on

personal

transformation and on community. It needs therefore to be based on trust.

Participatory Economics — Parecon — was introduced to address two of the remaining questions given above — What should we make?

How should we trade? Parecon recognises that 402

Utopia Governance and the Commons our making and re-making are aspects of community — they are not done in isolation.

We noted that Parecon, with regard to trade, could start with those things usually related most closely to governance, such as large infrastructure projects. So, Parecon need not wholly replace a market economy with a planned economy — only as much, or as little, as a community may decide. It leads, amongst other things, to businesses shared as co-operatives,

respecting

their

communities,

answerable to the nations that host them, conscious of an environmental ethic and seeing their role as providing a service to others, solving problems and meeting needs in society.

The move to a planned economy, of course, would start to undermine the market economy of consumer capitalism. Throughout the book we have noted calls for the overthrow of the capitalist system — either because this is seen as a necessity to achieve ecological stability, or as part of a political revolution, or to usher in a

‘gift economy’ as an alternative way of living, for its own sake. The message of this work is that contempt for capitalism is a serious error.

Overthrowing capitalism is not the path to utopia, it is the zombie apocalypse. Capitalism should not be seen as the enemy, but certainly it needs radical change. It does not need to be premised on debt and seeking profit above all else. The change involves all of us. Neo-liberalism doesn’t care about our identity, so long as we’re working and spending. It pretends to foster individuality but just wants us as drones. We saw that we’re not really looking to challenge

the

number-crunching

side

of

economics. The concern is rather that the social 403

Utopia Governance and the Commons side of things is neglected. The economics —

especially neo-liberal economics, sees us as fully rational, individual and entirely self-interested in our behaviour. It ignores the complexity of humans as, firstly, irrational. And, along with being irrational, we are not purely self-interested — we have as much interest in friends,

family,

relationships,

community,

solidarity,

care,

compassion,

celebration,

harmony, conversation, carnival and art. These

‘different pleasures’, I have tried to suggest, are the undergirding for changes to our politics, our institutions and our economy. Throughout the book we have been contrasting what might be termed structural change (changing the system) with personal change. But, to an extent, changing the system comes down to changing people as well. We would not seek to change the system, or try to impose the changes through laws and regulations, if we had not ourselves first changed to want to live in different ways and see different outcomes.

I have suggested that this personal change is partly about us being open to different pleasures. Finding our pleasure, I suggest, is a better path than seeking emancipation from some perceived oppression. This thought takes us on to consider our final question — How should we live? To answer this, we move on to summarise the new story that the book has proposed.

The New Story

In the Introduction and Chapter 2, we looked at the contrast between abstract ideals and concrete utopias. If we are promoting a utopia 404

Utopia Governance and the Commons though, we cannot be overly-prescriptive, we cannot have all concrete, we need a balance of ideals and concrete proposals so that the better world we hope for will be open to change and can unfold over time. So any new story needs to be open to changing circumstances and dissenting voices. Throughout the book I’ve been suggesting that we already live in stories and identified three ‘flavours’ — Privatopia, Cornucopia and Ecotopia. We’ve seen from Chapter 2 that Cornucopia is a golden age of the future, Ecotopia, to an extent, a golden age of the past, and Privatopia recognises what we have already achieved and hopes to preserve our ‘good lives’ indefinitely, without considering the consequences. A new story, I’ve tried to suggest, blends all of the good elements of these stories whilst taking heed of their blind spots.

What is the vision for the new story? The vision needs to be a broad one, that considers the Earth and future generations as well as our own immediate needs. The new story is primarily about three things — full participation in our governance, equity in our dealings with each other and trust.

Today we are well-placed to take up such a broad vision. Communication is at our finger-tips and we can learn and comment and criticise as never before. The critical attitude can be negative — leading to internet trolls and personal attacks on politicians. But the critical attitude also has the potential to be a very positive thing, meaning that we will demand a much greater say in how our lives are run as communities and as nations. This is my hope.

405

Utopia Governance and the Commons The very first thing is that we get a vote about the kind of government we would like. The number one vision is for everyone to have a say in how society is organised, from the local to the national and international levels.

Society is changing and people are questioning authority more and more, especially as the world wakes up to issues around climate change. If we abdicate responsibility for our politics, we can blame politicians for our problems and absolve ourselves of responsibility

— but this is a cop-out. The message is — start living the new story now. Don’t let us underestimate the influence that a minority of voices can have on the majority. Even although the number of dissenting voices is small, change can happen fast. There could be enough counter-culture — enough of the emerging new story — for us to achieve radical change. In 50

years’ time, young people will be asking why people of our time were so stupid.

Given the type of polity I have promoted in the book, I have had to try to avoid being too prescriptive about the decisions it might make.

I cannot even presume to judge what decisions may be reached over our six questions, or indeed, what a Parapolity might make of the related matter of the commons. However, I have tried to give some pointers in relation to four specific areas — nature, place, compassion and

pleasure,

and

the

suggestions

are

summarised in the chapter on, What We Might Decide, If We Could Decide.

What does living the new story really mean? As I’ve suggested above, and throughout the book, 406

Utopia Governance and the Commons

‘different pleasures’ would be the best way to sum it up. We are already sacrificing a lot to serve the masters of consumer-capitalism —

including our time, our money and often our sanity. How about instead seeing any sacrifice we might make as being a sacrifice to bring us more pleasure and beauty? The new story is about the play-off between the materialism of neo-liberal capitalism and a world premised on beauty, pleasure, silence, slowness, peace, grace, kindness, conversation, humour, art, play, celebration and carnival.

Of course, I have to face up to the fact that if a system of Parapolity were set in place, people might make many choices that I found fool-hardy, reckless or irresponsible. We might all quickly

conclude

that

a

representative

democracy was not so bad after all, and beat a hasty retreat! We definitely need to have an escape hatch, back to the ‘Westminster model’ if necessary. And then maybe our best hope would be to get Westminster to abide by its own Westminster code of conduct.

But even if the decisions that people find are not to our liking — even so, I feel the effort of raising questions about governance will have been worthwhile. Just knowing more about what we really think will have been a step in the right direction. The burden is not on us to convert the whole world, or to rescue it, or somehow force it to be different. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing to do, but it’s about getting out of the way sometimes and letting things take their own course. At best, we can only be catalysts — enablers — and try to live our own truth. Then it’s down to trust. Through 407

Utopia Governance and the Commons our explorations in this book, we’ve seen that culture, narrative, story-telling, drama, fiction, art, celebration and carnival are the routes most likely to get us to adopt new stories in our real lives — stories that will make for a sustainable and flourishing world. Also, of course, a strong link to a particular place and to nature.

Trust

So what about that personal issue mentioned in the Introduction — the issue of trust? If participation at all levels of politics really took off then, of course, it means ordinary people like you and me being trusted with big decisions that affect our lives. Would things really be better?

In particular, would people be willing to make the tough choices that we must face in relation to climate change? This issue of trust is really at the core of all the ideas expressed in the book about governance, the commons, and even in our stories of utopia.

The key question is — if we were all genuinely given the opportunity to fully participate in decision-making — would we make good decisions? It has to be faced that sometimes the decisions will not be good. There will be mistakes, but there will also be the opportunity to change decisions and learn from our errors.

What if a Citizens’ Assembly was set up on climate change — as proposed by, amongst others, Extinction Rebellion? The people chosen for the assembly are then faced with making changes

that

would

deeply

affect

them

personally, like giving up their cars and paying heavy taxes on anything involving carbon 408

Utopia Governance and the Commons emissions — which, let’s face it, is more or less everything. Would people make the choices necessary to help the planet and future generations? Or would they choose instead to protect their own lifestyles?

Well, part of the answer is that there is our general stance towards society and there is our personal stance towards people we meet directly, such as family, friends and work colleagues. We can choose to trust. As with the discussions above about changing the system and changing people, I think changing our personal attitude in our direct relationships is the key to changing things at a broader level. If we invest people with enough responsibility, give them the benefit of the doubt and trust them to make good decisions, then, I believe, most people will rise to this challenge and make choices that will be for the good of society and not just to protect their personal lifestyles. They are all premised on trust, which leads to a hope for the future. It is not a naïve hope, even although the troubles the world faces now are significant. It is not mere optimism, or wishing for the best. It is making a decision to work for a better future. I recognise though, that this places a certain burden on the reader. I am indirectly saying that yes, you too must change.

And

perhaps

that

will

leave

readers

uncomfortable. Maybe it will help to say that the issue of trust remains a burden to the author as well. Depending on mood and the most recent encounters with others; I am sometimes filled with hope and at other times I discover I have

a

leaning

towards

the

need

for

authoritarian power to impose change on society.

409

Utopia Governance and the Commons I am not fully cured of my issues around trust.

But, perhaps with my advancing age and the good experiences I’ve had in recent years, I believe that, for the most part, humans are incredible. With time and focus and thought, ordinary people are more than a match for any circumstance that might confront us. Choosing to trust should not be a burden, it should not be striving, it should instead be relaxing into an easier relationship with ourselves and our fellow human beings. So, yes, the story can be a journey of trust. I invite the reader to trust too.

I invite the reader to participate, so that together we might build a new story.

410

Utopia Governance and the Commons 17. Glossary

The descriptions provided here try to summarise the way the various terms have been used in the book. Some of the terms are especially liable to shifting meanings over time, or to different interpretations. I’ve tried to explain the various nuances of many of these, both here and in the main text.

Anarchism

Absence

or

abolition

of

government, the term is used in this work as one of the three ways to bring about changing society, the others being Reform and Revolution.

- Collectivist Anarchists are committed to no government, but the collectivists recognise the need for some organisation in order to make decisions,

whilst

avoiding

institutions,

bureaucracy and hierarchy.

- Individualist

Anarchists who are most

committed to freedom and independence.

- Syndicalist Anarchists especially interested in organisation around production, which is the area they see as most needing collective decision-making.

Assemblies See Federalism.

Capital

- Constant Capital That part of wealth that maintains

property

and

the

means

of

production.

- Commodity Capital

Stock of produce

held by a company.

- Cultural Capital

Intelligence,

imagination

and creativity, and their products, art, literature, music, etc.

- Financial Capital Sometimes just money in 411

Utopia Governance and the Commons general, but more specifically, money used for future production.

- Human Capital

Value innate to people,

including labour and work.

- Material Capital

I

use

this

term

to

distinguish the capital produced by the material economy from that which is produced by the other types of economy discussed in the text.

- Natural Capital

Often referring to all of

nature

(originally

just

called

‘land’)

but

preferably just those natural resources that are regarded as essential to be used by humans, whilst some of nature is retained as wild.

- Physical Capital

What I’ve called natural

resources, or material wealth.

- Productive Capital

Assets retained and

used for production.

- Social Capital

The

value

in

the

connections between people.

- Variable Capital

Labour power. (In Marx,

the power that creates surplus value.) Capitalism

Generally referring to a mode of production focused on the production of goods for exchange, that is, commodity. The term also includes a few other ideas that are seen as critical: The idea of scarcity. The idea of competition. The idea that the financing of capitalism is by way of financial debt and the idea that the primary aim of capitalism is for profit. As the rate of profit is understood to fall over time, the amount of debt required to maintain production with at least the same profit increases, and hence the appropriation of the natural commons continues to increase to meet this need. (The falling rate of profit is however

an

idea

contested

by

many

economists.)

412

Utopia Governance and the Commons Citizens’ Assembly A temporary grouping of citizens, often chosen by lot, who meet to deliberate over a particular matter within society. Some suggest that such assemblies could become a more long-term feature of governance, as part of a system of participatory politics (Parapolity).

Co-housing Community housing. Usually a privately-owned

housing

development

with

some shared facilities, and often with some form of consensus governance system, such as Sociocracy. Co-housing developments often aspire towards sustainable living options.

Cockaigne

A medieval utopia, reachable only

by eating through three miles of rice pudding.

Commodity/commodification

Goods

obtained

through

purchase.

Whilst

the

commodity may still be a useful product, there is an element of its monetary value that still adheres. Hence, commodification suggests something

being

reduced

to

a

financial

calculation only, away from its use-value and social value.

Commoning Individual acts that relate to a physical or emotional commons, such as sharing, compassion and kindness.

Commons

- Natural Commons

Often referring to

all of nature, but preferably just those natural resources that are regarded as essential to be used by humans, whilst some of nature is retained as wild.

413

Utopia Governance and the Commons

- Cultural Commons

Eisenstein refers to

intellectual property and creative copyright here, but I prefer to use the term to refer to the actual wealth produced, as in celebration, art, music and literature, rather than the copyrighting of these.

- Spiritual Commons

Imagination

and

creativity.

- Social Commons Compassion,

gifts

and

sharing.

Communism A belief in no government, like anarchism, but also communism believes in no private property and more or less equal status for all citizens. There has never been a nation that achieved true communism. The idea of a

‘communist state’ is, at best, a transitional stage (the dictatorship of the proletariat) to true communism and the phrase is really a contradiction in terms. Where states have tried to impose communism on their populations, this has generally gone very seriously wrong.

Community The term is often used by government to refer just to a geographical region. But community is also used to refer to people living in the same place or to a group of people linked by common interests, who may nonetheless be geographically isolated. The word is usually used in a positive sense, but it’s fair to point out that there is always some kind of community relation going on in every human life, even where this is entirely negative. Place-based community is especially important for the argument of this book. Neighbourhood is probably a better term to use for this, to distinguish it from the purely administrative meaning

often

used

by

councils

and

414

Utopia Governance and the Commons governments.

Compassion/ Sympathy/Empathy

Compassion is practical action taken as a result of sympathy towards oneself or another.

Empathy is the emotion behind sympathy and compassion. In this book, compassion includes shared pleasures and also compassion for oneself. Compassion and pleasure are seen as deeply linked.

Confederation/Confederalism

Sometimes

used in contrast to federalism. Federalism is often regarded as a top-down, state-imposed delegating of some decision-making to smaller regions

within

a

nation.

By

contrast,

confederalism organises from the grass-roots.

Although the latter is the preferred option in this book, I have still used the term federalism to describe it, and have explained the difference in the text.

Consequentialism Governance system where the day-to-day decision-making is seen as more important than the form of governance itself or the ideals of a political theory or party. The term is often used in contrast to Proceduralism.

Consequentialism is sometimes also referred to as Instrumentalism.

Conservation/Environmentalism/Ecology/

Deep Ecology

These all offer different

approaches to the human treatment of the biosphere. Conservation may seek to preserve particular environments, even when these are human-made, such as a particular farming landscape. Environmentalism is more focused on nature, but this tends to be nature as we 415

Utopia Governance and the Commons might like it to be for humans. Ecology recognises the importance of all flora and fauna within a bio-region and/or the whole planet.

Deep Ecology tends to give priority to the flora and fauna, over and above humans. These definitions are of course, fuzzy-edged and blend into one another.

Cornucopia One of the flavours of utopia identified in this work. Cornucopians take a very positive view of the future, with abundance achieved mainly through technological advance.

Democracy

Originally

a

bad

form

of

governance by the many, a corruption of polity.

- Deliberative

A

governance

system

where there is universal suffrage and where all or most citizens have the opportunity to discuss things that will affect their lives and directly influence the decision-making process. In this book,

both

Citizens’

Assemblies

and

Participatory Politics are seen as forms of Deliberative Democracy.

- Direct

Universal

suffrage

again,

but

Direct Democracy is often used to describe a system that uses referendums, so there is a direct

vote,

but

not

necessarily

much

deliberation.

- Representative

A

system

where

the

citizens elect people to represent their views and/or make decisions on their behalf (a critical distinction that is often a source of contention in representative government). The citizens have little or no power to veto decisions between elections.

Dystopia

A bad vision of the future or an existing vision for a better world that has turned 416

Utopia Governance and the Commons out to be worse rather than better. Dystopia is used to contrast with utopia, and some would argue that many utopian visions would in fact turn out to be dystopias.

Eco-village

Usually

small-scale

private

housing developments where the emphasis is on sustainable building methods and materials, energy-efficiency and ecologically sustainable lifestyles. Many eco-villages are also run as co-housing developments.

Economy

- Command Economy

See

Planned

Economy below.

- Cultural Economy Art, Music, Literature. One of the five economies considered in this book, and key to making explicit the disparities between the other economies, notably the suppression of the emotional economy, and the emphasis on the material.

- Emotional Economy

Compassion,

solidarity, conviviality, friendship, love. I also use the term ‘re-making’ in this book, to represent all of the above, and to complement the ‘making’ of the material economy. One of the five economies considered in this book, and critically it is the one that is least recognised in its importance for the good functioning of society.

- Financial Economy

Traditionally,

Just

the support of money for the functioning of production and exchange, but now covers transactions of money increasingly abstract from the physical world.

- Market Economy Referring

to

market

decisions being the best way to keep prices, inflation, employment etc. stable and efficient, 417

Utopia Governance and the Commons and also implying that market forces are the best way for this to be achieved, with little interference from government. The term is often used in contrast to a Planned or Command Economy.

- Material EconomyProduction and sale of physical goods and usually also refers to services such as care and the hospitality industries. One of the five economies considered in this book.

- Natural Economy Nature is considered as an economy in this book, especially in Chapter 9, and so is one of the five economies. Nature, in particular, is the archetypal circular economy, that might serve as a model for our other economies. (Or we could say that all the other economies are already part of nature’s circle, but not necessarily in a way that is working very well. Pollution is the obvious example.)

- Planned Economy In contrast to the Market Economy, a Planned Economy (or Command Economy) regulates, by government, or by some other means, the flow of goods and services in order to achieve some specific goals. This might be to full employment, to conserve resources or to achieve a fairer and more equal society.

- Spatial Economy One of the five economies considered in this book, the term is used in Chapter 8, essentially to mean Place.

Economic Rent

Traditionally, income from

the rent of land and property, the profit from the labour of others and the interest gained on money.

Ecotopia

One of the flavours of utopia

identified in this book, Ecotopia works to achieve an ecologically-sustainable future.

418

Utopia Governance and the Commons Equality

- of opportunity

Where all citizens have a

reasonably equal potential in such things as education, work opportunities, their treatment by the state and their status under the law.

- of outcome

Equality in the stricter

sense that society is arranged to ensure that all citizens obtain a roughly equal share of resources, no matter their age, state of health, intelligence etc.

Externality

- Positive externality

Something that is

considered more or less a free resource in terms of economics, such as, traditionally, nature and the emotional commons (the latter not even clearly recognised as a resource, although highlighted by Marx.)

- Negative externality

Something that is a

bad result of economic activity, but for which the economy does not carry a direct cost, for instance pollution and the effects of climate change.

Federalism

- Federations and Assemblies

Local

arrangement of a governance system. I use the term in the book to mean a grass-roots system such as in Participatory Politics, and not to mean local organisation that is devised and controlled by a state.

- Cellular and Associationalist

Used to refer

to grass-roots small-scale governance, which together

form

larger

assemblies.

The

Participatory

Politics

and

Deliberative

Democracy systems described in the book are cellular and associationalist systems.

419

Utopia Governance and the Commons Free trade

Referring to trade without tariffs or other restrictions imposed by governments, but the term is also sometimes used to refer to

‘free market’, that is, favouring international business.

Golden Age Referring to a past or future time when life is idyllic, so a golden age is often the basis of a utopia.

Goods

- Rival/Non-rival

A rival good is one where

its use or consumption will prevent it being used by someone else, such as, food or energy. A non-rival good is one where its use does not exclude others, such as street lighting, and other types of public infrastructure, and also, critically for this book, most types of cultural commons.

- Exclusive/Inclusive

Similar

to

Rival/Non-rival above, but often used to refer to social and cultural ‘goods’. Streaming a song or a film for instance is, to an extent, exclusive, whilst a concert or a film show is more inclusive.

Clearly there are fuzzy boundaries here, in particular, the commercialisation of culture may lead it towards being less inclusive.

- Expansive Again, mainly referring to social and cultural goods. Most forms are expansive in the sense that they grow with use, such that compassion and friendship lead to more compassion and friendship, and artworks, music and literature will often inspire new works to be produced. The expansiveness extends to all of the other economies, as all are potentially related by means of the exchange of gifts. (See Chapter 8.)

420

Utopia Governance and the Commons Government

- Aristocracy

Rule by a few.

- Democracy

See separate entry.

- Dictatorship

Bad form of Monarchy.

- Monarchy

Rule by one, often a king

or queen.

- Oligarchy

Bad form of Aristocracy.

- Polity

Good form of rule by the

many (of which, Democracy is the bad form).

Grace The word is used in this book to suggest that the universe is not neutral but is generally benevolent towards life. As such, grace may be a further ‘economy’ that underpins and sustains life.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) A measure of the economic output of a society.

Happiness

In this book, the definition of pleasure and purpose sustained over time is adopted.

Hierarchy

- Dominator Hierarchy

A ‘power-over’ structure imposed by authority and possibly aggression.

- Reciprocal Hierarchy

A ‘power-with’ structure that implies cooperation.

Idealism

Values and other regulative beliefs

that impose an order on decision-making (especially of governments) but which are of a generalised and often abstract nature. Often criticised for not being pragmatic. In this book the idealistic aspects of many utopian visions 421

Utopia Governance and the Commons are contrasted with the more pragmatic and concrete visions.

Instrumentalism

See Consequentialism.

Intentional Community

Usually housing and

perhaps other building types such as workshops and offices, built and run with a particular ethos in mind. An intentional community may be a religious community or may be a term used in relation to eco-village developments, where the

‘intention’ is towards sustainable living.

Joy

The emotion underlying pleasure and happiness, but sometimes also taken to mean a long-lasting sense of pleasure and contentment.

Land traditional term used in economics to refer to all aspects of nature used in production, so water, air, sunshine, soil, etc. as well as actual physical real estate.

Marginal Utility

In economics, the benefit

of producing one additional unit of anything.

This may, in balance, not be worthwhile, so the marginal utility value is the cut-off point in what is worth producing. The concept of marginal utility seems to derive from Friedrich von Wieser, but the term is usually attributed to Alfred Marshall. The emphasis of utility to the consumer (discussed especially with regard to neo-liberalism) was first explored by Carl Menger and William Stanley Jevons.

Means of Production

Tools, factories etc.

used for the production of material goods.

Having the ‘means of production’ is a key feature of arguments for communism and 422

Utopia Governance and the Commons socialism, as this allows the workers to control their making in order to benefit directly themselves from the production process rather than profits going to business owners.

Meritocracy An organisation or governance system based on ability or intelligence.

Municipalism

See

Confederation/Confederalism.

Nationalism Could be a benign honour and respect for one’s nation. However, at least in several societies, the term has come to mean a negative form of government or political belief that excludes others, including a hostility towards foreign nationals within the nation’s borders. Nationalism is often contrasted unfavourably with patriotism.

Nature

This book gives special emphasis to everything being within nature. In particular, all of the other four economies discussed —

material, cultural, emotional and spatial — are contained by the economy of nature.

Neighbourhood

Small

group

of

geographically-close

houses

and

related

facilitites. Neighbourhood and place are essential to the argument of this work.

Neo-liberalism

A conflation of the ‘neo’ of

neo-classical economics (with its emphasis on production) and ‘liberal’ from the rights and privileges afforded by a liberal society — and especially freedom. The aims of neo-liberalism could be seen as benign and it could be argued that no nation has ever managed to practice 423

Utopia Governance and the Commons neo-liberalism in its ‘pure’ form. However, attempts

at

neo-liberalism

have

led

to

contradictions of its core values and bad consequences. Some might argue that one or more of the consequences have been the underlying intention of neo-liberalism all along (such as disparities of wealth). Critics also often conflate neo-liberalism with capitalism, seeing it as the style of economics that encourages, in their view, the worst aspects of capitalism.

Noble Savage

The

idea

(usually

attributed to Rousseau) that humankind, in our early history, was largely benign and free of such

negative

features

as

aggression,

paternalism, hierarchy and selfishness.

Opportunity Cost

In economics, literally, the

next best thing that a person would choose to do, or, the thing they would give up in order to do their first choice. Often, this is related to money value, but economics often start with the example of Robinson Crusoe deciding between fishing or collecting coconuts. The term was first coined by Friedrich von Wieser. Von Wieser, notably, related the opportunity cost to whole societies rather than individual choice.

The difference between price and opportunity cost is the economic rent.

Organic

Term used by Murray Bookchin,

amongst others, usually used to imply positive features of people living close to nature, much as for ‘noble savage’ as described above.

Participatory Economics (Parecon) A

form of planned economy, where decisions about production and distribution are made by 424

Utopia Governance and the Commons all citizens and not regulated via market forces.

Participatory Politics (Parapolity) A

type of deliberative democracy. In this book I have used the term Parapolity to mean both a grass-roots federalism type of government (also known as Associationalist or Cellular) and a Citizens’ Assembly style often appointed by sortition, that is, by lot.

Patriotism

In this book I use the term to mean pride and honour associated with a particular place or nation, but one which is generous, inclusive and welcoming — giving special regard to foreigners, visitors, as well as to other groups who may be in danger of being marginalised by society. In this regard, patriotism is almost directly opposed to nationalism and populism.

People’s Parliament

Used in this book to

refer to a government, or an estate of government, by means of one or both of the types of participatory politics described above.

Permaculture

Originally

‘permanent

agriculture’. A system to maximise agricultural yield with minimum effort, in particular, using perennial crops, and no artificial pesticides and fertilisers. The term has been expanded to include ideas about human society and more general care of the planet. Permaculture is often regarded now as one form of Regenerative Agriculture.

Pleasure

In this book, taken to be the

foundation of a person’s emotional life and deeply linked to compassion for self and 425

Utopia Governance and the Commons compassion of a community and society.

Recognising and exploring our pleasures is seen as key to devising a new story.

Privatopia

The term is used to describe our current Western system of consumer capitalism and is one of the three flavours of utopia described in the book.

Proceduralism

A style of government

where the form of government itself and/or its ideals are seen as more important, and leading to better decisions, than dealing with situations as they occur and making judgements based on pragmatism. (It could reasonably be asserted that the book’s focus on deliberative democracy is a proceduralist stance.)

Politics

Taken to mean governance by the

people in this book, and as distinct from party politics or the state.

Polity A general term for governance, but used more specifically to refer to government by the people, as per politics above.

Populism

A style of politics where the

allegiance of the many is obtained by blaming or excluding some other group, either within or outside the society. Right-wing populism might target immigrants. Left-wing populism might see the 1% as the minority group that causes society’s problems. Populism is often contrasted unfavourably with patriotism.

Power

- Power-over

Power based on hierarchy,

and

often

associated

with

paternalism,

426

Utopia Governance and the Commons exploitation and dominance.

- Power-to

The ability to work within the

context of flourishing as a person, as in having independence, autonomy and self-direction.

Making one’s own story.

- Power-with

Including the elements of

power-to above, but also including co-operation with others.

- Power-under

Sometimes

meaning

subversion

of

existing

power

structures,

sometimes meaning to welcome existing power structures and sometimes meaning to seek ways of living outwith existing hierarchies of power.

Pre-distribution

In

contrast

to

re-

distribution, the idea (from John Rawls) that wealth — for instance, from the natural commons — should be distributed equally to people in advance of any production etc. This is so that poorer people do not need to be supported by allowing a few to become very wealthy from exploiting the natural commons and then taxing them to redistribute the wealth back to the poor.

Property and Possession Property is used in this book to mean just ownership whilst possession is used to mean ownership with responsibility. The terms could be applied to material things, but could also be extended, for instance, to contrast ‘intellectual property’ with

‘intellectual possession’. This might in turn suggest alternatives to copyright and patent law.

Proportionality

As

an

alternative

to

absolute equality, proportionality means a fair share, in proportion, for instance, to the amount 427

Utopia Governance and the Commons of work a person does.

Re-Making

The term is used in the book to mean

‘reproduction’

in

its

traditional

understanding in economics, but also all aspects of the emotional/social commons that support the material economy, but are generally unacknowledged.

Re-Wilding

Allowing land (including rivers,

lakes and oceans) to be taken back by nature, often with minimal intervention by humans, but sometimes with selective planting of native flora and the re-introduction of native fauna.

Reform

One of the three ways identified in

the book to change our governance system —

reform, revolution or anarchism. Reform suggests gradual change. The systems of Parapolity promoted by the book are intended as gradual reform and not sudden breaks with current systems.

Regenerative agriculture A

system

of

agriculture that takes in numerous techniques, but, in particular, avoids chemical fertilisers and pesticides and tries to achieve a natural balance in its processes. Regenerative agriculture is also especially concerned with the preservation of healthy soil.

Rentier

One who benefits from ‘economic

rent’, but the term has also come to be used in

‘rentier capitalism’ — where all aspects of a society are commodified and are therefore available to be rented back to others.

Republican

Literally this means government

428

Utopia Governance and the Commons without a monarchy. However it also implies a degree of involvement with government by the population at large. It is an especially difficult term to define, with its association with right-wing politics in the USA. The plea for

‘republican values’ is as much a slippery term as nationalism,

populism,

patriotism

and

liberalism. But we might include government by public discussion, the idea of a common good, openness to differing opinions and a search for truth. Freedom is also important, and republicans

see

freedom

as

‘socially

constructed’. Republicanism is also closely linked to the ownership of property.

Revolution Sudden overthrow of government.

One of the three ways to change society identified in this book, the others being reform and anarchism.

Silence

Not to be taken entirely literally, but as well as actual silence it is the contrast between ‘sound’ and ‘noise’. The term is used in this book to denote a desirable state where there is minimal intrusion by unwanted noise, especially as a component of a simple lifestyle.

Good music, laughter, birdsong etc., under this definition, would be welcomed as beneficial sound.

Slowness

As

with

silence

above,

not

necessarily literally slow, but rather having things at an appropriate speed, both in one’s own life and in wider society. Again, a potential component of a simple lifestyle.

Socialism

Government

that

emphasises

equity, fair distribution of resources and social 429

Utopia Governance and the Commons justice.

Sociocracy

A governance system based on all

participants having a voice, mutual obligations, and a commitment to vision, mission and aims.

Sociocracy also tries to avoid hierarchy and tries to adapt to changing circumstances. In this book, Sociocracy is taken as a suitable basis for deliberative democracy.

Sortition

Choosing by lot. Used in this book

especially

in

relation

to

Citizens’

Assemblies, a system of governance that might, in turn, form one type of people’s parliament.

Statism

Literally, of the state, but used negatively to imply top-down governance.

Subsidiarity Decision-making that is based on the region that will be affected by the matters that are being decided, such that, what is local is only decided locally, and so on. Subsidiarity is a key ingredient of deliberative democracy and Parapolity.

Surplus value

In

Marxist

economics,

there is only one true value, labour power, whose use-value is the ability to produce value larger than its own exchange value. For Marx therefore, the process of production is the process of the production of surplus value.

- Absolute

Producing more by adding more

labour.

- Relative

Producing more by improving the

means of production and/or the speed/skill of labour.

Triple bottom line Planet,

people,

profit.

430

Utopia Governance and the Commons Usually offered as an alternative to capitalism that is purely based on the profit motive.

Usury Making money from money, rather than from work. One of the three forms of economic rent.

Utopia

A vision for a better world. A utopia can be idealistic or pragmatic or a mixture of the two.

Value

- Commodity value Mainly

meaning

value

derived from exchange, but also implies that things that would not normally be bought and sold (like nature or friendship) have been reduced to mere transactions, that is, have become commodified.

- Use/Utility value Value that something has when directly used, traditionally in contrast to commodity value, but note that commodities also contain some use-value, otherwise there is no point in buying or selling them.

- Exchange value

The value of goods when

bought and sold.

- Extrinsic value

A material value (either

use-value or commodity value) used in contrast to intrinsic value.

- Instrumental value

Similar to extrinsic

value above, but often used to imply a misuse of something.

- Intrinsic value

Having value in and of

itself. We may say this in regard to a person or with reference to wild nature. It implies that we should not use people and not use at least some aspects of nature only for their instrumental or extrinsic value.

431

Utopia Governance and the Commons Vision/Mission/Aims

From

Sociocracy.

The vision is how we wish the world to be. The mission is the process of change involved in achieving the vision. The aims are the means by which the changes are brought about.

Wealth

- Common Wealth A collective term, often referring to natural resources, and implying that these are shared resources.

- Cultural Wealth

The

wealth

(more

specifically, the benefit to community and to personal thoughts, imagination and creativity) derived from art, music, literature.

- Material Wealth

A

material

production

process produces wealth, first and foremost.

The wealth might be used directly by the producer or by others. All capital comes from wealth, but not all wealth is capital.

- Social Wealth

The benefits derived from

community and the interactions between us, thus, in the terms used in this book, from the emotional economy, the social commons and re-making.

Wild Nature

- Wild Body The term is used in the book as a reminder of our connection with nature. All aspects of self are embodied.

- Wild Mind The term is used again as a reminder

that

knowledge,

creativity

and

imagination are not separate from nature.

- Wild Soul

The book uses this term to

suggest that there is a wider economy that supports the manifest world of nature and which is benevolent towards the life in which we participate.

432

Utopia Governance and the Commons 18. Bibliography

Utopia — Thomas More

Rutger Bregman — Utopia for Realists Gregory Claeys — Utopia — The History of an Idea

Krishan Kumar — Utopia and Anti-Utopia in Modern Times

Frank E. Manuel and Fritizie P. Manuel —

Utopian Thought in the Western World Andrew Keen — How to Fix the Future Evan Eisenberg —The Ecology of Eden Darren Anderson — Imaginary Cities Raj Patel and Jason W. Moore — A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things

Murray Bookchin — The Ecology of Freedom Richard Sennet — Together

Stewart Brand — Whole Earth Discipline David Owen — Green Metropolis

Per Espen Stoknes — What we think about when we try not to think about Global Warming.

Garrett Hardin — Filters Against Folly Adam Smith —The Wealth of Nations 433

Utopia Governance and the Commons Henry George — Progress and Poverty Karl Marx — Capital

Robert Putman — Bowling Alone

Roger Scruton — A View from Somewhere Cindy Milstein — Anarchism and its Aspirations Chris Carlsson — Nowtopia

Robert Greene — Power

M. Scott Peck — A Different Drum David Bohm — On Dialogue

Keith Sutherland — A People’s Parliament Ernst Callenbach (the author of the novel, Ecotopia) and Michael Philips — A Citizen Legislature

Marjorie Kelly — Owning Our Future John Rawls — A Theory of Justice Carl Honore — In Praise of Slow

Alexander Lowen — Pleasure

David Abram — The Spell of the Sensuous David Abram — Becoming Animal

Mary Reynolds Thompson — Reclaiming the Wild 434

Utopia Governance and the Commons Soul

Theodore Zeldin — Happiness

Theodore Zeldin — The Hidden Pleasures of Life Paul Bloom — How Pleasure Works

Alex Evans — The Myth Gap

Joel Kovel — The Enemy of Nature — The End of Capitalism or the End of the World?

Hernando de Soto — The Mystery of Capital Robert Skidelsky and Edward Skidelsky — How Much is Enough?

‘Starhawk’ — Truth or Dare

Wendell Berry — Sex, Economy, Freedom and Community

George Monbiot — Feral

Andro Linklater — Owning the Earth Fawzi Ibrahim — Capitalism Versus Planet Earth Charles Eisenstein — Sacred Economics Charles Eisenstein — The Beautiful World that our Hearts Know is Possible

Steven Pinker — The Blank Slate

Jonathan Porritt — Capitalism as if the World Matters

435

Utopia Governance and the Commons Martin Adams — Land

Will Storr — The Age of the Selfie Josh Ryan-Collins, Toby Lloyd and Laurie Macfarlane — Rethinking the Economics of Land and Housing

Michael Albert — Practical Utopia John Holloway — Change the World without Taking Power

David Goodhart — The Road to Somewhere Peter Barnes — Capitalism 3.0

David C. Korten — The Great Turning — From Empire to Earth Community

Guy Standing — Plunder of the Commons Guy Standing — Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen

Tom Hodgkinson — How to be Free

Paul Collier — The Future of Capitalism A C Grayling — The Good State

David Fleming — Surviving the Future Kevin O’Leary — Saving Democracy Joseph Heath – Enlightenment 2.0

436

Utopia Governance and the Commons Arturo Escobar — Designs for the Pluriverse Kate Raworth – Doughnut Economics Colin Tudge – The Great Re-Think David Harvey — Rebel Cities

437

Utopia Governance and the Commons 438

Utopia Governance and the Commons Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Jonathan Baxter, Sarah Gittins, Joanna Foster and all other members of Dundee Artists in Residence (D-AiR) and to the Dundee Commons group (If the City were a Commons), and to Kimberley Ellis. I’d also like to

thank

those

I

have

interviewed

or

corresponded with as part of the research for the book. I mention, in particular, Colin Fox and Michael Nosdivad (Scottish Socialist Party), Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP and Christine Jardine MP

(Liberal Democrat), Andy Whiteman MSP (Green Party),

Gordon

Lyndhurst

MSP

(Scottish

Conservative and Unionist Party), Iain Morse (Brexit Party — now Reform UK), Robert Hodgarth (Edinburgh Southside Community Council), Justin Kenrick (Extinction Rebellion) and Topaz Pauls, Bren Muirhead and Carlos Martin (Reconfigure).

Special thanks go to those who have read and given feedback on the book: Maureen Parnell, Mark O’Reilly and Douglas Westwater.

Much of the writing of the book has taken place in cafés in and around Edinburgh. I mention, in particular, The Chapter One Coffee House (Dalry Road), Edinburgh Coffee and Cake (South Nicholson

Street),

The

Printworks

Café

(Constitution Street), Qupi (Leith Walk), L’Etoile (West Port), Martone (now ‘Society’, Waterloo Place), Santosa (Albert Street), The Chocolate Tree (now The Maytree, Bruntsfield Place), Vigo (Saint John’s Road, Corstorphine) and Carpe Diem (Main Street, Kirkliston, now closed).

Also, various branches of Caffe Nero, especially at South Bridge Street, Lothian Road, Stafford Street, Infirmary Street and Nicholson Street.

And also, pubs, The Southern and South Pour 439

Utopia Governance and the Commons (both in South Nicholson Street) and The Grosvenor (Shandwick Place).

440