scholarly journals Socialisme ou Barbarie: From Castoriadis’ Project of Individual and Collective Autonomy to the Collaborative Commons

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 265-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evangelos Papadimitropoulos
Keyword(s):  
Market Socialism ◽  
Fertile Ground ◽  
Cornelius Castoriadis ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Political Project

In this article, I examine the content of socialism in the work of Cornelius Castoriadis in its potential relation to the current emergence of collaborative commons. I begin by analysing Castoriadis’ conceptualisation of socialism, as crystallised in the project of individual and collective autonomy, which was initially demonstrated in the journal Socialisme ou Barbarie (1949-1965) and evolved thereafter in his later writings. I continue by briefly presenting some basic points of criticism, after which I explore the potential compatibility of Castoriadis’ political project with the prospect of market socialism, as the latter emerges today in the form of collaborative commons. I argue, in particular, that collaborative commons echo Castoriadis’ conception of socialism in several respects. Finally, I critically develop a series of proposals made by Vasilis Kostakis and Michel Bauwens that could provide fertile ground for further discussion on the prospect of the commons.

scholarly journals The Liberal Commons

2020 ◽  
pp. 33-66
Author(s):  
Vangelis Papadimitropoulos
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Economic Democracy ◽  
Global Commons ◽  
Digital Commons ◽  
Cornelius Castoriadis ◽  
Market Operation ◽  
The Commons ◽  
State And Market ◽  
Classic Liberalism

Within this section, the author examines the liberal case for the commons through the perspective of leading theorists on the area. Elinor Ostrom, Lawrence Lessig and Yochai Benkler. All three place the development of the commons in parallel with state and market operation. They advocate for the coexistence of the commons with capitalism and the state. Ostrom’s work is discussed as focusing on the problem of collective action by elaborating the model of polycentrism. Lawrence Lessig and Yochai Benkler expand Ostrom’s work from the local to the global commons of the Internet and free/open source software. They introduce the term ‘digital commons’ to describe a non-market sector of information characterised by an ethic of sharing, self-management and cooperation between peers who have free access to online platforms. Benkler often diverges from classic liberalism by pointing to the autonomous development of the commons beyond capitalism and the state. Yet this underlying goal generally conforms to the liberal tradition. Discussion of the arguments of Cornelius Castoriadis and others stresses the impotence of the liberal commons in addressing the contradictions of capitalism and the state pointing to the ‘lack of the political’. The author argues in line with these perspectives that economic democracy is vital to underpin a digital commons.

scholarly journals Editorial: Why No Borders?

Refuge ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Anderson ◽  
Nandita Sharma ◽  
Cynthia Wright
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Undocumented Workers ◽  
Global System ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Political Project

This editorial article argues for No Borders as a practical political project. We first critically examine borders as ideological, generating and reinforcing inequality. We consider some responses to injustices produced by borders: the call for “human rights”; attempts to make immigration controls more “humanitarian”; and trade unions’ organizing and campaigning with undocumented workers. Recognizing the important contributions of some of these responses, we argue that nevertheless they have often been limited because they do not question sovereignty, the territorializing of people’s subjectivities, and nationalism. No Borders politics rejects notions of citizenship and statehood, and clarifies the centrality of borders to capitalism. We argue that No Borders is a necessary part of a global system of common rights and contemporary struggle for the commons. The article concludes by highlighting the main themes of the papers that make up the Special Issue, a number of which explore practical instances of the instantiation of No Borders politics.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (93) ◽  
pp. 55-61
Author(s):  
Christian P. Haines ◽  
Peter Hitchcock
Keyword(s):  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Social Situations ◽  
The World ◽  
The Commons ◽  
The Common ◽  
Political Project ◽  
The Way

This article introduces the dossier “Is There a Place for the Commons?” by briefly explaining the concepts of the common (no s) and the commons (with an s) in terms of their philosophical, political, social, and historical trajectories. It examines the tension between the universalizing aspiration of the common as a political project and the particular social situations of the commons. It emphasizes the commons as praxis, that is, as a practice that takes place in the world without being reducible to place. In doing so, it also considers the vexed relationship between the commons and state sovereignty, the way in which the common functions as a placeholder for revolutionary subjectivity, the significance of ecology for the commons and vice versa, and the importance of queer, indigenous, feminist, and minoritarian commons for understanding what it means “to common” within and against capitalism.

"Once? No. Twenty times? Sure!" Repeated decisions and uncertainty in the tragedy of the commons

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Hardisty ◽  
Howard Kunreuther ◽  
David H. Krantz ◽  
Poonam Arora
Keyword(s):  
Tragedy Of The Commons ◽  
The Commons

Caring for the Commons

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Fisher ◽  
Jennifer Wies ◽  
Stacie King
Keyword(s):  
The Commons

Corruption as “one‑stop‑shop”: theory and empirical analysis

2018 ◽  
pp. 32-51
Author(s):  
R. Yu. Kochnev ◽  
L. I. Polishchuk ◽  
A. Yu. Rubin
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Business Environment ◽  
Enterprise Performance ◽  
Double Jeopardy ◽  
One Stop ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Public Production ◽  
Performance Project ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Sector Theory

We present the comparative analysis of the impact of centralized and decentralized corruption for private sector. Theory and empirical evidence point out to a “double jeopardy” of decentralized corruption which increases the burden of corruption upon private firms and weakens the incentives of bureaucracy to provide public production inputs, such as infrastructure. These outcomes are produced by simultaneous free-riding and the tragedy of the commons effects. The empirical part of the paper utilizes data of the Business Environment and Enterprise Performance project.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document