Reflections on the Role of the State in a Commons-Creating Society

Discussion

Lukas Peter:

"After having developed a commons theory of property, it is now necessary to turn to the question of the relationship between commons and the state, on the one hand, and the market, on the other.

These questions are of great importance because the notion of commons is often interpreted as a form of social organization “beyond markets and states” (Ostrom 2010; Bollier et al. 2012).

As I will demonstrate in the next two chapters, I believe this interpretation to be rather misleading. To my mind, commons are not so much a radical alternative to the market and the state, but rather as a strategy for democratizing these two social arrangements. In general, the aim of my analysis is therefore to shift our framework of societal organization from one based on the state-market dichotomy to one conceptualized as a commons-creating society. In order to flesh out this idea, I will sketch how the state and the market can be transformed through commons institutions and civic practices of commoning. Let us begin this analysis with the state-commons relationship.

My examination of the state-commons relationship begins with some general, preliminary reflections on this relationship. In a second step, I discuss the specific role commons can play in relation to various forms of the state, including the monocentric, the minimal and welfare state. I then develop a better understanding of the notion of the state in a commons creating society with reference to the public goods housing, health care and education. In a final step, I discuss the role of the state in developing commons in a non-ideal world. Here, I touch on a number of issues: the ‘urgency’ of climate change, the role of commons in ‘developing’ countries, the threat of state oppression and opportunities to reclaim and cultivate commons both within and against the state."

In order to clarify my intentions here, I would like to begin my discussion of the state-commons relationship with some preliminary remarks on the subject. While it might be argued that commons exist as a form of social organization ‘beyond’ and thus independent of the state, I would, contrarily, argue that the state is a central institution for the realization and maintenance of commons. This claim might appear surprising and fundamentally wrong by those who interpret and experience the state as a hierarchical and oppressive institution and, in contrast, commons as a form of self-governance. Here, the notion of self -governance appears to contradict the necessity of an external authority manifested in the state. Yet, the problem with such an antithetical presentation of the state and commons is that it remains caught up in the dualistic Hobbesian model of the state: the monopoly on the use of coercion can only be held by a Leviathan that rules autocratically over society.

Here, we must distinguish between the monopoly on the use of coercion, on the one hand, and the form of organization that exercises this power, on the other.

As I have argued above, the self-governance of a commons provides us with an alternative means to overcome the Hobbesian belligerent state of nature.

From this perspective, a monopoly on the use of force is created through trust, reciprocity and the democratically determined rules and regulations of the commoners.

In the words of Anna Stilz:

- “The democratic state is a joint practice in which we act together to secure a common end, and its unity can be explained on lines similar to the unity of other practices in which we commonly act together.” (Stilz 2009: 192)

Here, the state’s monopoly on power needs to be understood as a form of reciprocal and public coercion. Only through this democratically legitimized monopoly on power can affected people limit appropriation and free riding and, in turn, real- ize fair and sustainable social arrangements. While the enforcement of laws by the state can limit the harm afflicted on others and the overuse of resources, the state’s ability to collect taxes is also a central means of alleviating power asymmetries and opportunities for unequal appropriation. We might therefore say that, in its ideal form, a democratic state can be interpreted as a self-governed commons.

In turn, this notion of the state provides us with a point of reference for thinking about how the state can provide access to resources in the form of a commons predistribution. Tis is indeed a very difficult question because it is sometimes assumed that state provision and commons are opposed to one another. In this case, state provision is normally conceived as a ‘top-down’ activity, while commons are understood as goods that are created, reproduced and managed ‘bottom-up’ by those affected. Furthermore, the notion of state provision of common property is closely associated with the communism of the Soviet Union and its practices of dispossession, coercion and uniformity."

(https://www.academia.edu/90705132/7_The_role_of_the_state_in_a_commonscreating_society?)