Message 00892 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00881 Message: 40/89 L3 [In date index] [In thread index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [jox] A response to Michel and Jakob

On 15/03/12 11:49, Stefan Meretz wrote:
Google and Facebooks are used for purposes, that can be commons.
But Google and Facebooks are definitely not commons, even not from
the pov of the users. It is always important to distinguish between
the ressource and the social process. A commons relates to the
social process with respect to a ressource, but a ressource itself
can never by a commons. A commons is a social relationship as the
commodity is too.

Is that a consensus? And if, then how?

Traditionally/historically speaking (for example if you look at an
English map) the places where those social relationships (commoning)
took place were called commons (i.e. a real place, a piece of land,
incl. set of natural resources), such as Greenham Common, which is a
good example, since it has been both the site for the Greenham Common
Women's Peace Camp and the Royal Air Force base they protested against.

Relatedly, what do you call what used to be called commons, then?


Thread: joxT00881 Message: 40/89 L3 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00892 [Homepage] [Navigation]