Commons: Green Political Theory and the State

‘it is noticeable how many conversations about green politics very soon dry up when the issue of change is broached’ (Dobson 1990: 130).

found this, forgot I was on about the majesty of the commons in 1992, boring people at yesterday's climate change conference with this stuff.

This was a paper given at the Political Studies Association conference in Swansea, my then partner went on holiday in Italy leaving me behind, I had an infection and to be honest I have never been felt very safe with academics since....less polish than it could be and I am sure if i read it line by line I would object to my naiveity, post-humanism when I meant care about other species....too much hanging around with academics blunts ones thought, damages prose and neuters the politics

Anyway Defend extend deepen the commons is still the slogan....along with the continuing FCUK the realos...

goldsmith et a is Nick Hildyard et al and those great people now at cornerhouse...more on 'men of maize' on monday by the way....




Green Political Theory and the State
Derek Wall

The University of the West of England‘Towards a Green Political Theory – In Defence of the Commons?’Introduction

The central argument of this paper is that green political theory, in contrast togreen philosophy and political programme, is under theorised. Elsewhere I have criticised Greens for failure to develop a clear means of transition towards a sus-tainable society (Wall 1990) here I argue that with one exception (Goldsmith etal 1992) green theorists have failed to develop convincing accounts of the politi-cal workings of a green society. To develop an effective political theory, we mustdefine green imperatives and the political metabolisms that will work to maintainthem.The evidence suggests that traditional conceptions of market and state fail toprovide forms of metabolism that maintain these imperatives, and thus providesa considerable challenge to theorists. I argue that such meta- bolisms can onlybe gained (or in certain cases recreated) through the development of participatoryand decentralised instiftutions. While anarchism, or to be more precise, opposi-tion to the state may or may not be a core green value, green imperatives demandopposition to the traditional state and the construction of alternative forms of ‘gov-ernment’. The debate (to the extent that there has been a debate) over the gover-nance of green societies has been a debate between eco-anarchists and eco-statists,while one party claims that the creation and maintenance of green imperatives demands centralised restraint, the other argues that such imperatives are served bygreater freedom, participation and self-government. This debate is illustrated byexamining the concept of ‘the commons’ seen by some as the source of ecological destruction and by others as a political institution that overcomes the deficien-cies of both state and anarchism in maintaining sustainability. The debate over the commons suggests that unless the state is redefined as a flexible micro-institution,green imperatives are best served by the development of a new institution that isneither market nor state. The metabolism between human and non-human nature demands the construction of a territory that may be developed with the aid of a number of maps most notably those provided by ecology, anthropological investigation and elements of Marx’s social theory. Simple naturalism that describes the economy or government of nature as a simply reproducible model for a human polity is, of course, rejected.

A Poverty of Theory?

Analysing literature of green parties and green political movements it is obviousthat ‘greens are no single-issue movement. They take stands on a wide range ofcontemporary social and political problems.’ (Goodin 1992: 202) Greens aim to‘restructure the whole of political, social and economic life’ (Dobson 1990: 3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
14Derek WallPorritt believes that ‘the politics of radical ecology embraces every dimension ofhuman experience and all life on Earth ...’ (Porritt 1987: 216). When he is con-tinuous stating ‘it goes a great deal further in terms of political comprehensivenessthan any other political persuasion or ideology has ever gone before,’ we may con-demn him for rhetorical exaggeration but may still agree with Goodin that greenparties are concerned with political problems ignored by other ideologies (Goodin1992: 182-4). Greens are particularly concerned to argue that their ideology is based upon ‘holistic’ philosophy,‘... a new vision of reality; a fundamental change in our thoughts, perceptions, and values’ (Capra 1984: 1984: xviii.).While the green movement has policy and philosophy it lacks a theory thatserves to show politically how a transition can be made from what ‘is’ to what,from a green perspective, ‘ought’ to be. Thus ‘one reads very little about how toget there from here’ (Frankel 1987: 277) and as Dobson observes ‘it is noticeablehow many conversations about green politics very soon dry up when the issue ofchange is broached’ (Dobson 1990: 130). Dobson hints that green philosophi-cal idealism blocks the development of a practical political theory (Dobson 1990:70-71). In essence the belief that a change in consciousness will lead to a greensociety, allows greens to ignore the challenging questions of how to create andmaintain a green society. Once a change in world view occurs, appropriate insti-tutions will follow, naturally, from such a transition in perception. To the extentthat greens practically intervene, for example, by contesting elections or takingpart in direct action, it may be argued that they intervene educationally: direct action, electoral activity and lifestyle change can be see, perhaps, as strategies aimed primarily at changing ‘consciousness’.I have argued that greens must examine the problem of transition ‘politically’as well as philosophically and have listed briefly some of the challenges in cre-ating a theory of transition (Wall 1990). I equally believe that the problem of‘Getting There’ is parallel by the challenge of ‘Being There’, thus green politi-cal theory needs to discuss the political instruments necessary to maintain a greensociety, once such a transition has been made. Prior to such a discussion we need to briefly discuss the imperative such green government would seek to maintain.What do the Greens Want?ecological sustainability Examining the literature of green parties it is possible to determine three impera-tives or sets of linked demands shared, to a large extent, with eco-anarchists anddeep ecologists such as Earth First!While we may agree that ‘Traditionally conceived, political philosophy con-cerns itself with certain perennial problems involving the nature of justice, politi-cal obligations and, more generally, the good society’ (Brown 1990: 58), we might note that the paramount demand of any political philosophy is the maintenance ofsociety. In describing the ‘good society’, a precondition whether we follow Aris-totle, Marx, Rawls or another theorist, is the maintenance of such a society. The modern green movement demands that conditions for the maintenance of societyare discussed in any investigation of the nature of the ‘good society’. Rightly or wrongly, they argue that such dangers as nuclear war or accident, increasing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
In Defence of the Commons?15

background radioactivity levels, severe chemical pollution, the disruption of vi-tal global biochemical cycles etc, threaten our collective social existence. Froman eco-socialist perspective, it is claimed ‘Without overcoming the ecology crisis,which puts in question the very existence of human civilisation on this earth, themere possibility of the socialist goal – the general emancipation of human beings,men and women – becomes an illusion’ (Bahro 1982: 57). Equally it has been argued that more localised social process have led to the destruction of sustainablehuman-nature interactions and contributed to the collapse of particular societies(Hughes 1975). The ecological imperative, motivated by this wish to maintain hu-man society, is obvious from the literature of green movements and parties (GreenParty 1987). Any metabolism between humanity and non-human nature must be sustainable. What constitutes ecological sustainability is an extremely complexquestion with social and biological ramifications. Political ecologists, though,have long argued that a diversity of species and habitats is extremely important.Although some predictions have proved exaggerated and non-human nature mayproved to be extremely robust, prior to maintaining any other demand the institu-tions of a green society must maintain a sustainable ecological relationship.green humanism Green parties have advocated ecological sustainability, while arguing that suchsustainability is compatible with (and may depend upon) meeting a broad range ofhumanist demands including participatory democracy, social equality, community,pluralism and creative work. Bahro notes ‘The Greens already have their sights on more than just the ecological aspect. It is clear from all the literature I’ve seen thatthey stand for the general emancipation of human beings, men and women, andthat they want to overthrow all conditions in which people are debased and humil-iated’ (Bahro 1982: 14). It is clear from studying the literature of any green Partythat ecological sustainability is to be achieved in a way that aims to promote hu-man well being. For example, the first Ecologist candidate to contest the FrenchPresidency stated in his 1974 manifesto ‘It is one and the same system which or-ganises the exploitation of the workers and the degradation of living and work-ing conditions and puts the whole earth in danger’ (Wall 1994: 247), implying aconcern for sustainability and human welfare. Greens criticise the humanism ofother contemporary ideologies for concentrating on ‘the blind policy of economicgrowth, which is so extravagantly praised by all the political parties, (yet) takesno account either of human well-being or of the environment’ (Wall 1994: 247).Such growth, as well as creating ecological implications, defines human welfaretoo narrowly, according to greens, leading to inequality and significant externali-ties. Liberal democracy, which according to greens, provides individuals with lit-tle say in the governance of their communities while being increasingly distortedby centralisation and the power of large corporations, is equally criticised. Greenhumanism includes demands, which even in the absence of ecological concern,might be used to define a green political programme . It is possible to apply greenhumanism to different policy areas and derive more detailed demands. For exam-ple, a green health policy would emphasis a low technology approach, greater pa-tient participation, prevention before cure, seeking to solve problems holisticallyby placing illness in a social and environmental context (Porritt 1987: 82-4, 168-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
16Derek Wall9). A green transport policy, while recognising the ecological imperative, would seek to strengthen local communities, emphasise access for those on low income rather than the necessity of economic expansion and encourage decentralisation ofservices.To a surprising extent such a humanism is shared by many deep ecologists. Despite the much publicised misanthropy of some writers, supporters of Earth First!in Britain and North America argue that ecological sustainability must be maintained in a humanist context of social equality, economic democracy, pluralism and participatory democracy (Bookchin & Foreman 1991).post-humanism
Greens would argue that the sustainable ecological society that meets human demands should do so with the least violence to other species. Policies for wildlifeconservation may be derived from the first green imperative of ecological sustain-ability, equally practices that violate animals such as factory farming and vivisec-tion may also violate aspects of the second green imperative. Although vivisec-tion may give rise to inappropriate medical care or factory farming may contributeto the social degradation of rural communities, greens dislike practices that makeother species suffer irrespective of anthropocentric concerns. It is argued that:‘The global Earth First! movement comes from a backgroundof Deep Ecology that recognises the equality and inherent worth ofevery form of life. We consider our role as liberators of the forest ecosystems together with all the life that inhabits it, whether they be Bears, Leopards, Plants or People, the survival of the Clouded Leopard is as important to me as the cultural survival of the Penan tribe of Sarawak.’ (Burbridge 1992: 6)Although less fundamentally held such post-humanism is an element of the discourse of green parties and many green anarchists. The United Kingdom Green Party, for example, has long advocated policies to promote vegetarianism. Porritt observes:‘For us, it is not enough to protect animals for practical, self-interestedreasons alone; there is also a profoundly moral concern, rooted in ourphilosophy of respect for all that dwells on this planet ... vivisectionwould be abolished, all hunting and coursing with hounds would bebanned, battery farming would be phased out, our reliance on animalsto meet our need for food would be reduced – and then we could start living in harmony with the rest of creation!’ (Porritt 1987: 184)The debate over animal rights and a green politics that moves beyond anthro-pocentrism is complex and throws up a number of difficult conceptual problems.Ecological sustainability and human welfare may demand, in certain situations,the exploitation of animals (Einarsson 1993). Although greens rarely define howmuch suffering is permissible to other life forms in order to maintain other demands, post-humanism provides a third and politically unique imperative for them.Where ‘Traditional political theory assumes a moral community consisting of all(rational) men ... green theory expands this community to include animals, plants,and possibly even the Earth itself’ (Lucardie 1993: x).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
In Defence of the Commons?17Governing the Green SocietyTo be effective green political theory needs to describe the institutions and prac-tices best able to maintain imperatives of ecology, humanism and post-humanism.It is possible to outline in broad terms, at least three forms of potential green gov-ernment:1) Market mechanism;2) State Regulation;3) Non-state/Non-Market regulation.the marketThe market has been seen as a mechanism for maximising welfare and decentral-ising power. Equally as well promoting human benefit, environmental economistsargue that the market, especially if adapted, can maintain sustainability (Cairn-cross 1991) Pigou, who discussed the notion of ‘internalising external costs’, ar-gued that pollution produced by a factory might create costs for the local commu-nity. By making the firm pay for any such costs it imposed upon the local com-munity, it could be encouraged to act in a more environmentally friendly manner.Such a process of turning a social/environmental cost into an internal cost of pro-duction, might be achieved through a pollution tax. Others have argued that resource taxes might be levied to discourage the consumption of potentially scarceminerals and metals, while there has been much recent discussion of a carbon tax to reduce CO2 emissions. It has also been suggested that even without such fiscaladaptions, a market metabolism will maintain sustainability (Elkington & Burke 1987). Green capitalism, it has been argued, will result from firms cutting costs byreducing energy consumption and other forms of unecological waste. Green con-sumerism, whereby individuals buy ‘greener’ products will also encourage sustainability. The success of the Body Shop, a cosmetics firm that has enjoyed consistent growth by supplying cruelty-free products, provides a example of how themarket may maintain the post-humanist imperative.There are problems associated with all of the elements of a green market metabolismoutlined above. Rather than encouraging serious action on the part of industry,where demand is relatively inelastic, environmental taxes can be passed to theconsumer without loss of company income. Environmental taxes like all indirecttaxes tend to penalise poorer members of the community more than wealthier in-dividuals, challenging the egalitarian demand within green humanism. Firms mayprioritise a reduction in labour costs or an increase in sales before seeking environ-mental cost cutting that might generate only a small saving. Green consumerismis limited by the availability of information and products. There are more funda-mental criticisms of a market approach than such doubts about the efficiency ofits components. Where market advocates argue that the ‘primary cause of envi-ronmental problems ... (is) the failure of markets and governments to price theenvironment appropriately’, green opponents argue that there is a contradictionbetween the market and ecological sustainability (Goldsmith et al 1992: 175).The market produces for profit and profit, generally, demands growth. Yet con-stant growth creates severe ecological problems according to many commenta-tors (Trainer 1985, Wall 1994: 116-124). There are extreme difficulties in cal-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
18Derek Wallculating and setting environmentally sustainable prices, ‘Practically speaking, thesense of the phrase “ecologically correct prices” cannot come to anything morethan “prices which enable the market economy to keep ticking over” while takinga bit more account than hitherto of the concerns of environmentalists, ecologists,business people with long views, and others with interests in “natural resources”’(Goldsmith et al 1992: 176). Echoing criticism that ‘Bourgeois society is ruled byequivalence. It makes the dissimilar comparable by reducing it to abstract quanti-ties ... that which does not reduce to number, and ultimately to the one, becomesillusion.’ (Adorno & Horkheimer 1966: 7), the notion that environment can begiven a price is often rejected. ‘Clean air should be protected, not traded and soldlike a used car’ (Goldsmith et al 1992: 178). Finally, it can be argued that themarket rather than being ‘free’ is dominated, at present, by large corporations thatdistort its workings and are hostile to green imperatives.state regulation or anarchyIt has been argued that without the restraining influence of the state’s maintenanceof green imperatives will prove impossible, neither the market nor decentralisedinstitutions will tend to maintain green imperatives. Advocates of the eco-state argue that a state is necessary to create and maintain green imperatives.For eco-statists the state is necessary to introduce measures that will create anecological economy, may mediate between different interest groups in society,can act to coordinate decentralised units where necessary and has the means toenforce sanctions against those who break ecological rules (Barry 1994, Frankel1987, Goodin 1992). The state can act as a democratic institution, providing allaffected when an ecological problem is discussed with representation. These arefunctions that cannot, it is often claimed, be fulfilled in the absence of the state,therefore, for a society to exist within environmental constraints it must evolve asophisticated eco-state. Globalisation, means that ecological problems cannot, forthe eco-statist, be solved on a purely local level by decentralised institutions).Neither can anarchy maintain humanist values. It is argued that vital elementsof green humanism including democracy, equality, justice and pluralism are un-likely to arise without the state. Despite green suspicions of the state and supportfor decentralisation, the essential plank of Green Party social policy, the basic in-come scheme, demands central organisation (Frankel 1987: 105). Eckersley notes‘The more we mo: ve away from the modern welfare state to local autonomy theless likely we can expect to find the same levels of wealth, welfare and social ser-vices among different local communities’ (1992: 175). Equally while it is possi-ble to find examples of anarchistic hunter-gatherer societies that have functionedeffectively economically (producing enough to satisfy immediate needs, minimis-ing labour time, preventing inequality and maintaining a sustainable metabolismwith local ecosystems), it is more difficult to conceptualise how state-less soci-eties would meet economic needs in a technological complex age. According toFrankel, writing in 1987, ‘So far, no advocate of completely decentralised plan-ning has been able to show how material redistribution, domestic and interna-tional trade etc, can be achieved without the existence of central state institutions’(Frankel 1987: 57).It has been argued that stateless societies are undemocratic. Some advocates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of anarchism argue that the evolution of strong reciprocal community bonds willallow government without formal institutions. Others believe that the creation ofsuch an alleged form of gemeinschaft will, far from allowing full participation,end pluralism, politics and choice. Bahro, for example, ‘appears to want a society where politics as an activity ceases – that is, a society of permanent harmony, rec-onciliation with nature and so forth. This is an anti-democracy, a social order ofspontaneous or “natural” agreement – something which is foreign to human theoryand practice.’ (Frankel 1987: 230) Sale’s organic society, based on natural biore-gions, ‘will tilt consensual communities towards conservatism ... but it will by thesame token make them more stable, more predictable, and more “comfortable”,and less prone to ill-considered decisions’ (Sale 1980: 501). Hunt argues thathostility to ‘others’ is a functional necessity for the stateless society, ‘If there ismuch social mixing between the groups, if people work outside the group, it willweaken the community bond ... xenophobia is the key to the community’s suc-cess’ (Hunt, n.d: 3). As Pepper notes, ‘Hunt’s “green anarchism” does not seemtoo people-friendly, unless those people are drawn from one’s own bioregion orecocommunity’ (Pepper 1993: 168). Middleton examining the problem from theperspective of musical sociology asks ‘How are diversity and solidarity to be rec-onciled, in the musical realm or any other? This, in a nutshell, is the problem ofcommunity – and nobody has
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8
20Derek Wallcracked it yet’ (Eisenberg 1987: 69). It is a question that must be answered ifthe stateless society is to serve the demands of pluralism, democracy, equality andjustice within the imperative of green humanism.Finally, it might be arguedthat the post-humanist imperative, cannot be achievedwithout state structures. One only has to examine anti-cruelty legislation alreadyin existence and international agreement to protect wildlife to see that the statemay act to protect other species.Against the StateAnti-Statists see the state as cause rather than cure for ecological and social ills.Examining the modern state in its various manifestations (liberal democratic orauthoritarian), at different tiers (globally, regionally, nationally, locally) and ondifferent continents, examples of the maintenance of green imperatives are rare.Writing this paper in December 1993, I hear of the European Community, an ex-ample of a supra-state body ‘sympathetic’ to environmental protection, urging theconstruction of a network of inter- continental motorways. The United States Gov-ernment in the 1950s, it is revealed, fed radioactive breakfast cereal to pregnantwomen and children with learning difficulties. It might be added that its long pub-licised radiation experiments on other species breaks the third imperative, just asviolently as imperatives one and two. The nuclear waste of the former Soviet state,dumped in the Arctic Seas, is a source of anxiety. In Britain THORP, the process-ing plant that will create quantities of the most dangerous chemical substance onthis planet, is to open. The GATT agreement, an example of global state agree-ment, will despite environmental counter-measures, cause severe environmentalproblems, displace millions of peasants from the land and strengthen agribusinessmultinationals. In my city (Bristol) the Friends of the Earth office was recentlydemolished to make way for a new trunk road!Such examples may seem like rhetorical exceptions to generalised state attemptsto serve civil society, situations where ignorance, secrecy or authoritarianism havedistorted attempts to protect the environment. Yet despite a long history of en-vironmental legislation, a number of global agreements and well publicised in-ternational conferences, followed by measures for alternative energy production,wildlife conservationand recycling, there is apparent widespread oppositionamongstmodern states to sustainability. As commentators from Marx to Foucault have ar-gued, even when themselves opposing ‘humanism’, the modern democratic stateoften stands against broad humanistic values such as democracy, equality, jus-tice and pluralism. This is illustrated if we briefly note some of the attacks bydemocratic state institutions on radical environmentalists. The re-occupation ofBougainville by Papua New Guinea in an ‘Eco-War’ that has killed many nativeBougainvillians, is the most significant and, perhaps least publicised example ofthis antipathy occurring at the time of writing (Economist, 27.3.93). Even if we re-ject Bougainville as a special case, we should remember that French special agentsbombed the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior (Day 1989: 251) In 1985, author-ities in Pennsylvania bombed a radical ecologist commune, burning to death thir-teen men, women and children (Harry 1987, Wall 1994, Walker 1988). We need toask why these states or elements of a local state are (or were) so radically opposedto political ecologists? Equally we need to ask whether all state structures tend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 9
In Defence of the Commons?21to oppose ecological sustainability? Why are some states more hostile to greenimperatives than others? The challenge for any eco-statist is to construct a modelthat will, in contrast to contemporary examples of the state, maintains green im-peratives.Examining the state, we see an extreme hostility to ecological reforms thatthreaten accumulation. It has been argued that only where environmental mea-sures allow continued economic growth are such reforms supported by the state,whether in a liberal or authoritarian mode, whether at a local, national, regionalor global. Greens have long argued, rightly or wrongly, that the very process ofcontinuous, accelerated accumulation threatens the first green imperative. Marx-ists have argued that the state far from being a servant capable of acting on behalfof the population is a product of a narrow class interest. As a servant of capital-ism, the state must therefore promote economic expansion rather than ecologicalsustainability. Habermas stress the notion of legitimation in explaining the state’sneed for economic expansion, accumulation allows the maintenance of cross classsupport. To put the case crudely, when the economic cake is growing, questionof distribution are eased, contradictions are less likely and less threatening. Anar-chists would argue that rather than acting on behalf of a particular class, the stateacts in its own (class?) interest, encouraging accumulation so as to strengthen it’sown power.For Carter:‘the state acts as a key element within an environmentally haz-ardous dynamic ‘A centralised, pseudo-representative,quasi-democraticstate stabilizes competitive, inegalitarian economic relations that de-velop “non-convivial”, environmentally damaging “hard” technolo-gies, whose productivity supports the (nationalist and militarist) co-ercive forces that empower the state. Technologies that facilitate cen-tralised authoritarian control are preferred (such as nuclear power, whichalso provides plutoniumfor nuclear weapons). Such technologies servethe interests of state actors and those who benefit (the economicallydominant class) from the economic relations the former choose to sta-bilize. Moreover, the competitive, inegalitarian economic relationsthat are stabilized maximise the surplus available to the state in or-der to finance its weapons research and to pay for its standing armyand police (the coercive forces).’ (Carter 1993: 45)The earliest states in pre-capitalist societies worked within a similar dynamic, sug-gesting as Carter argues, that such state antipathy to the environment predatescapitalism. In ancient Mesopotemia salinization degraded land, breaking the firstgreen imperative and possibly led to the collapse of the state. Salinization wasa product of over-irrigation used to create an economic surplus, utilized in turnto support centralised state structures and maintain an effective military machine(Hughes 1975: 30-5). Similar processes were apparent in Ancient Egypt, althoughhere the fertility of the Nile allowed economic accumulation to continue for manycenturies. The Roman Empire illustrates how legitimation processes may lead tothe destruction of nature independently of Carter’s postulated dynamic. The Ro-man state, especially in its later imperial form, used both bread (accumulation andredistribution as a product of military expansion) and circuses (mass entertain-ment in the Colosseum and thousands of amphitheatres) to retain political control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 10
22Derek WallOver-farming may have accelerated desertification in the North African provincesand soil erosion in Italy. Mass spectacles of violence as a form of legitimating en-tertainment certainly contributed to the extinction of the elephant, rhinoceros andzebra in North Africa, lions in Asia Minor and tigers in Iran (Hughes 1975: 103-6).Eco-statists need to challenge the view that any state demands ecologically de-structive accumulation, the maintenance of repressive armed forces, developmentof centralised structures, economic inequality and destructive forms of legitima-tion.The Commons: a Basis for Green Government?There are significant reasons why we would expect the state to work against greenimperatives and for anarchist alternatives to be inadequate in maintaining them.The Ecologist argues that the Commons, defined as either a particular kind of stateor a form of stateless government, overcomes such objections providing a partici-patory, decentralised means of sustaining ecological conditions without doing vi-olence to humanist demands for equality, justice and pluralism (Goldsmith et al1992). Indeed it works to sustain ecological systems by virtue of its democraticnature, providing ‘sustenance, security and independence, yet typically does notproduce commodities’ (Goldsmith et al 1992: 125).The commons can take a number of different forms, a flexibility that does notfix its participants within a closed universal structure, thus ‘the unlimited diversityof commons also makes the concept elusive’. As a form of organisation that reg-ulates the metabolism between humanity and non-human nature, while regulatingeconomic relations between members of its human community, it is marked by:‘local or group power, distinctions between members and non-members, rough parity among members, a concern with commonsafetyrather than accumulation, and absence of the constraints that lead toeconomic scarcity’. [It provides a] ‘structure of internal rules, rights,duties and beliefs which mediates and shapes the community’s ownrelationship with its natural surroundings.’ (Goldsmith et al 1992:125)The commons has been described as the source of, rather than the solution to eco-logical destruction. As a regime that rejects conventional private property, it can-not sustain the imperative of sustainability, argue critics. Hardin argues:‘The tragedy of the Commons develops in this way. Picture a pas-ture open to all. it is to be expected that each herdsman will try tokeep as many cattle as possible on the Commons. Such an arrange-ment may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribalwars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beastwell below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comesthe day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal ofsocial stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic ofthe Commons remorselessly generates tragedy.As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximise his gain! ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 11
In Defence of the Commons?23(and) concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursueis to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another ...Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that com-pels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is lim-ited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursu-ing his own best interest ... Freedom in a Commons brings ruin to all.’(Hardin 1977: 20)For Hardin and more liberal eco-statists the commons, globally and locally mustbe enclosed by the state, if sustainability is to be maintained. Yet for advocates thecommons, at least locally, does not represeent a territory without rules, but an in-stitution that maximises local economic and ecological sustainability through pop-ular negotiation. Advocates argue, for example that commons regimes in Britainworked for centuries, before being replaced by enclosure rather than devastated byenvironmental mismanagement. Between 1740 and 1840:‘common rights to arable land and pasture, fuel, fish and gamewere converted to private property by Act of Parliament or other legalprocesses ... such transfers of wealth and rights, with new extremesof hardship and inequality, required severe enforcement. At home thedeath penalty was extended to three times as many offences as for-merly. Record numbers crowded the prison hulks and penal colonies.’(Stretton 1976: 37)Prior to this process of enclosure, environmental over-exploitation was overcomeby a system of locally agreed self-regulationthat providedcommoners with ‘stints’.Although distorted by feudal control and ultimately, as we have seen abolished bythe state, ‘It seems fair to describe the stinting system, from the viewpoint of thecommoners, as participatory and roughly democratic ... indeed, any change ofsystem in the common fields – including the regulation of stinting – needed unan-imous consent ... (Roberts 1979: 151) Unlike possible idealistic conceptions ofanarchism, rules and politics are a feature of commons regimes but are agreed lo-cally rather by a centralised state. The Ecologist argues that commons regimescontinue to exist across the globe and despite constant pressure from the state andthe market, provide both an agency of transition and an appropriate metabolismfor the maintenance of a green society.Liberal eco-statists borrow a concept from Malthus, when they argue that left totheir own devices local communities will tend to break ‘ecological rules’. Statistsalso argue that even if local decision making was sufficient at a local level, theglobal commons would require enclosure to preserve environmental integrity. ForGoodin, it follows that environmental problems such as the depleted ozone layeror the potential greenhouse effect demand global solutions instituted by globalbodies (1992: 157-8).In contrast The Ecologist argues that ecological problems are unlikely to occurwithin the commons and any increase in state power will in diminishing the auton-omy of the commons, stifling the growth of the most effective political mechanismof sustainability. The Earth Summit, an event working towards global solutions toenvironmental problems, held in Brazil in 1993 is condemned as a forum of, andfor, the rich and powerful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 12
24Derek Wall‘For the major players, the Summit was a phenomenal success.The World Bank emerged in control of an expanded Global Environ-mental Facility ... The United States got the biodiversity conventionit sought simply by not signing the convention on offer. The corpo-rate sector, which throughoutthe UNCED process enjoyed special ac-cess to the secretariat, was confirmed as the key actor in the “battle tosave the planet”. Free-market environmentalism – the philosophy thattransnational corporations brought to Rio ... has become the order ofthe day’ (Goldsmith et al 1992, 122). Environmental solutions thatmaintain the current distribution of income and power will be pro-moted by global institutions. Thus “solutions” that make the poor-est and least powerful sacrifice the most will be prioritised, explain-ing the concern with reducing population growth in the South ratherthan challenging high consumption (yet ecologically suspect) life inthe North (Goldsmith et al 1992: 183).The process of global management will fail to maintain sustainability, while erod-ing humanist welfare. Thus:‘an uncompromising drive toward a single global social structurefitted out with mechanisms for global surveillance and global resourceconversion to feed unlimited material advance. “Sustaining” this pro-cess through damage control requires an equivalent level of surveil-lance and intervention [For global management to meet the demandsof the market and state power] more of the world’s people than everbefore are now viewed by managers as “obstacles” to be removed or“social factors” to be cajoled into “collaboration”.’ (Goldsmith et al1992: 180)Even global environmental management, motivated by green imperatives ratherthan the interests of the market and state, is suspect for those who argue that globalenvironment ills are the product of varied local causes and can only effectively becured by local management. The commons has to be ecologically sustainable tomaintain the prosperity of its inhabitants who are likely to have the ‘expertise’ todo so. Any effective form of ecological restoration demands:‘an open-endedness,receptiveness and adaptability to the vagariesof local climate, personalities, consciousness, crafts and materials ...In this and other respects, the concept of the commons flies in the faceof the modern wisdom that each spot on the globe consists merely ofcoordinates on a global grid laid out by state and market: a uniformfield which determines everyone’s rights and roles. “Commons” im-plies the right of local people to define their own grid, their own formsof community respect for watercourses, meadows or paths; to resolveconflicts their own way.’ (Goldsmith et al 1992: 126)For eco-statists local management increases the risk of ecologically unsustainablepractice, for advocates of the commons greater centralisation ensures that thosewith the greatest interest in sustaining their environment and the greatest knowl-edge of how to do so will be marginalised. From the perspective of the first green
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 13
In Defence of the Commons?25imperative, there is a clear choice between extending state power or reducing it,between seeing ‘localisation’ as a solution or advocating ‘globalisation’, betweenaccepting a Malthusian conception that human participation will destroy the en-vironment or believing that local decision making is more likely to lead to sus-tainability. Examining such questions some conclude that ‘local control, while notnecessarily sufficient for environmental protection, is necessary, while under statecontrol the environment necessarily suffers’ (Khor cited in Goldsmith et al 1992:128). The Ecologist marshals impressive empirical evidence to substantiate theirclaims for the commons. Their notion by introducing restraint but organising suchrestraint on a participatory basis, allows them to overcome criticism that the state-less society will be either ineffective or, by relying purely on a supposed gemein-schaft, attack broad humanist demands. For them the commons is not fixed butflexible and rather than seeking an unlikely abolition of politics, establishes mech-anisms for dealing with conflict. They also argue that co-ordination between dif-ferent communities is possible, ‘system of common rights, in fact, far from evolv-ing in isolation, often owe their very existence to interaction and struggle betweencommunities ...’ (Goldsmith et al 1992: 126). Equally they would reject the no-tion that inequality will result from a commons regime, for them, global inequalityis a product of a global market that sucks resources from the poorest, greater localeconomic control is a prerequisite for reducing inequality and ending poverty.Constructing New Political LandscapesThe Ecologist makes a remarkable contribution challenging the notions of botheco-anarchist and eco-statists. The commons contributes a distinctly green con-ception of government, providing a model that maintains nature without beingbased on a simplistic notion of the natural society. It is a rare example of a projectin social ecology, successful or otherwise, informed by both an investigation ofhuman society and ecological science. A number of serious criticisms remain,for example, while many global environmental problems are best tackled by pro-moting local solutions, perhaps the international energies demanded to clear thenuclear hazards created by dumped Soviet waste or sunken United States sub-marines, might justify supra-state action. That such problems exist is clearly aproduct of state action and as such can be used to justify the abolition of the state,yet in clearing up the grossest examples of state created danger, perhaps the state(or supra-state) is still needed? Equally we should ask whether the commons de-scribe a number of contradictory institutions? Do some, or perhaps all, commonsregimes tend to evolve towards the state or market? Are different interpretationsof the empirical evidence for the existence and efficiency of the commons moreplausible than the claims of The Ecologist? Are there any features of a commonsregime that may be universalised to make the commons more effective?To developgreen governmentwe need to build critically on the commons, whileinvestigatingother mechanisms that increase democratic participation so as to main-tain sustainability. Whether we define such mechanisms as ‘state’ or ‘anarchy’seems less important than understandingwhy traditional conceptions of both termsmay be inadequate. Township meetings in New England (that inform Bookchin’smunicipal libertarianism) and the Songlines (that allowed hunter-gatherersto recog-nise a certain pluralism and communicate across the Australian continent) are ob-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 14
26Derek Wallvious mechanisms that should be re-assessed. Such political anthropology wouldnot seek ‘the natural society’ but instead analyse metabolisms between varied hu-man communities and varied ecosystems that maintain(ed) green imperatives. Inthe construction of green government, while rejecting Marx’s meta-narratives, wemight borrow his concept of praxis and fear of prescriptive utopian models. Itmight, in conclusion, be fitting when we remember that Marx’s first political worksexamined erosion of the commons, to speculate that contemporary advocates mayhave written a Communist Manifesto but have yet to present a Capital (Marx 1975:224-263). The Ecologist has produced a document to which engaged greens mayrally but have yet to fully satisfy critical attention.BibliographyAdorno, T. & Horkheimer, M. (1979), The Dialectics of Enlightenment, London:Verso.Bahro, R. (1982), Socialism and Survival, London: Heretic.Barry (1994)Beckerman, W. (1975), Pricing for Pollution, Institute of Economic Affairs: Lon-don.Bookchin, M. & Foreman, D. (1991), Defending the Earth, Black Rose: Montreal.Brown, A. (1990), Modern Political Philosophy, Penguin: London.Burbridge, J. (1992), ‘Global action against rainforest destruction’, Green Revo-lution, Spring 1992.Cairncross, F. (1991), Costing the Earth, London: Economist.Carter, A. (1993), ‘Towards a Green Political Theory’ in Dobson, A & Lucardie,P (eds), The Politics of Nature, London: Routledge.Capra, F. (1984), The Turning Point, London: Flamingo.Day, D. (1989), The Eco Wars, London: Harrap.Dobson, A. (1990), Green Political Theory, London: Unwin Hyman.Eckersley, R. (1992), Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocen-tric Approach, London: UCL Press.Einarsson, N. (1993), ‘All animals are equal but some are cetaceans’, in Milton, K(ed), Environmentalism, London: Routledge.Eisenberg, E. (1987), The Recording Angel, London: Picador.Elkington, J. & Burke, T. (1987), The Green Capitalists, London: Victor Gollanz.Frankel, B. (1987), The Post Industrial Utopians, Cambridge: Polity.Goldsmith, E, Hildyard, N, Bunyard, P. & McCully, P. (1992), ‘Whose CommonFuture?’, The Ecologist, 22: 4.Goodin, R. (1992), Green Political Theory, Cambridge: Polity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 15
In Defence of the Commons?27Gould, P. (1988), Early Green Politics, Brighton: Harvester.Green Party (1987), General Election Manifesto, London: Green Party.Hardin, G. & Baden, J. (1977), Managing the Commons, San Francisco: W.H.Freeman.Harry, M. (1987), ‘Attention MOVE! this is America’, Race and Class, 28, 4: 5-28.Hughes, J.D. (19y75), Ecology in Ancient Civilisations, Albuquerque: Universityof New Mexico Press.Hunt, R. (n.d.), The Natural Society: a basis for Green Anarchism, Oxford, EOABooks.Lucardie, P. (1993), ‘Introduction’,in Dobson, A & Lucardie, P (eds), The Politicsof Nature, London: Routledge.Marx, K. (1975), ‘On the law on thefts of wood’, in Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels,Collected Works, 1, London: Lawrence & Wishart.Pepper, D. (1993), Eco-Socialism, London: Routledge.Porritt, J. (1984), Seeing Green, Oxford: Blackwell.Roberts, A. (1979), The Self-Managing Society, London: Allison & Busby.Sale, K. (1980), Human Scale, London: Secker & Warburgh.Saward (1993), ‘Towards a Green Political Theory’, in Dobson, A & Lucardie, P(eds), The Politics of Nature, London: Routledge.Trainer, F.E. (1985), Abandon Affluence!, London: Zed.Wall, D. (1990), Getting There, London: Greenprint.Wall, D. (1994), Green History, London, Routledge.Walker, A. (1988), ‘Nobody was supposed to survive’, in Living by the Word,London, Womens Press.