Silence Is a Commons (1983)

One of Illich's most important ideas was the "Radical Monopoly," using cars in cities as an example, where the car operates as a monopoly technology, dominating what was previously a commons. The only way to rebel against it was to walk and ride bicycles, even though your participation in cities in these modes would be less efficient, higher risk, and generally inferior to that of using a car.

And yet, just in the last 25 years people inspired by Illich who were cyclists and pedestrians formed movements (also using the ideas of Jane Jacobs) for walkable cities and neighbourhoods, and bike lanes. I think these movements have had some success re-establishing a new commons carved out of the one dominated by cars.

I think the internet, and the internet giants form one of these radical monopolies. The equivalent to being a cyclist 25 years ago but on the internet today would be using things like BSD or linux, Pinephones, Matrix, DDG, and in particular, it would mean largely eschewing the browser as a means for entertainment.

Maybe there is a new commons movement just ahead of us?

Interesting article. Here's a point of critique: I think highways and motorways are still commons –– At least in countries where their maintenance is paid by state money, ie. where they are not private roads. This is the classical argument of having the state in charge of providing the infrastructure (such as streets, but also water, electricity or fast internet). Here in Germany, privatisation of infrastructure is a frequent point of discussion and anger. From my point of view, this is the modern equivalent of the "commons become [...]" discussion, where [...] is now more like "bought by private companies" then "productive ressources".

Freedom from chemical trespass is also a lost common.

https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/chem...

I think almost all organisms have a little bit of Teflon chemicals now...

> [The commons] in a strictly economic sense, was not perceived as scarce.

I think this is crucial distinction that is missing from most folks' rhetorical use of "commons". Once the reality of scarcity is perceptible, some form of rationing will always take place, typically expressed as "ownership" (e.g., by the lord via enclosure, or privately via homesteading). As such, there can be no "commons" of a scarce resource. At best, the owner can permit actions which mimic those of a commons.

> The issue which I propose for discussion should therefore be clear: how to counter the encroachment of new, electronic devices and systems upon commons that are more subtle and more intimate to our being than either grassland or roads

I share the author's concerns, but the "commons" framing misidentifies the problem. Thankfully, a decade later someone did a more thorough job of it: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-societ...

So is the night sky.

I fear we're way past any form of commons, from land, sea, air, space, even radio wave frequencies are sliced up, sold, paid for and controlled. Even when stepping in 'nature', it's governed by laws that state what you can and can't do. I can't think of a thing we don't regulate and I don't think that'll ever go away.