"It’s strange, isn’t it? The ideology of capitalism is that it is a system that generates immense abundance (so much stuff!). But in reality it is a system that relies on the constant production of scarcity.
This conundrum was first noticed back in 1804, and became known as the Lauderdale Paradox. Lauderdale pointed out that the only way to increase “private riches” (basically, GDP) was to reduce what he called “public wealth”, or the commons. To enclose things that were once free so that people have to pay in order to access them. To illustrate, he noted that colonialists would often even burn down trees that produced nuts and fruits so that local inhabitants wouldn’t be able to live off of the natural abundance of the earth, but would be forced to work for wages in order to feed themselves. "
Degrowth: A Call for Radical Abundance
That analysis fails on the observation that if that were true, then the final closure would have been the final increment in private wealth.
In fact, it also fails because private wealth increased without regard to closures.
It's a superficially attractive idea, but the example provided is a false case; destruction isn't the same as enclosure anyway.
Nope, just a student of economics. There are qualitative differences between destruction and enclosure. One of the key observations is that enclosure was done within a legal framework, establishing formal private control, while destruction is generally extra-legal. They also differ between the results; one destroys capital while the other shifts control over it.
@cocoron I agree with the conclusions of the article, that we should expand the commons, but I disagree with most of its basic premise. There is no chance that people's claims over the fruits of the land were not going to eventually come into conflict as the population grew and people moved around. While there was certainly excessive enclosure and deliberate acceleration of this effect in some places, these certainly weren't the root cause.
@cocoron And while there were certainly situations where people worked out peaceful sharing of common resources, each of them would have eventually collapsed or had to be renegotiated as populations grew, and there were plenty of bloody conflicts among indigenous peoples over common resources when they became scarce either due to population pressure, changes in climate, movement of populations, or whatever.
@cocoron I see privatization as merely the most simplistic solution to the problem of conflict over shared resources. What would be far better IMO is to apply all we've learned in the meantime about governance to coming up with sharing arrangements that are resilient and scale better. Open Spectrum is one example of a movement to take a resource that was privatized and make it common again.
@freakazoid I think you're missing the point. How Capitalism works from enclosure is by securing enough resources for everyone, but then *enforcing* scarcity. If there weren't enough resources for everyone in the first place, there would be no incentive to come with. The point is to produce *artificial* scarcity. People negotiating or fighting over scant resources is a separate development.
@cocoron Ok, I think I understand a little better now. Thanks for the explanation.
Adam Smith pointed out this or at least an analogous problem, that of private property creating haves and have-nots. His suggestion was redistribution. I read "expansion of the commons" as going beyond redistribution, though, since instead of "we're going to take from you to give to this other person" it's "we have plenty of this to go around, let's figure out how to share it equitably."
I mean they sell water and air in bottles... 😪
Sunbeam City is a Libertarian Socialist solarpunk instance. It is ran democratically by a cooperative of like-minded individuals.