The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the most translated and celebrated documents in the world, marking its 70th anniversary this year. But relatively few people are aware of the significance of its 25th Article, which proclaims the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living—including food, housing, healthcare, social services and basic financial security.[1] As our campaign group Share The World’s Resources (STWR) has long proposed, it is high time that activists for global justice reclaim the vision that is spelled out in those few simple sentences. For in order to implement Article 25 into a set of binding, enforceable obligations through domestic and international laws, the implications are potentially revolutionary.

To appreciate the truth of this assertion, it is necessary to outline some brief history. Since the Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948, the United Nations never promised to do anything more than “promote” and “encourage respect for” human rights, without explicit legal force. The Universal Declaration may form part of so-called binding customary international law, laying out a value-based framework that can be used to exert moral pressure on governments who violate any of its articles. But in the past 70 years, no government has seriously attempted to adapt its behaviour in line with the Declaration’s far-reaching requirements.

An International Bill of Human Rights was eventually agreed by the General Assembly in 1966,[2] which comprised the Universal Declaration and its two main “implementing” treaties—the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The latter Covenant elaborated in greater detail the economic and social rights previously laid out in the Universal Declaration (as largely reflected in Articles 22 to 26, especially Article 25), and it was intended to form the basis of a binding legal obligation under international law. Still, both Covenants lacked any serious enforcement machinery, and were ratified by States parties under the sole proviso that they would submit periodic reports on steps taken and “progress achieved”.[3]

Marginalising economic and social rights

While civil and political rights have enjoyed an increasing degree of implementation throughout the world (albeit partially and fitfully), the historical record on economic and social rights is far less sanguine. This is forcefully illustrated by the UN’s current Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston. In his first report submitted to the Human Rights Council, he argues that economic and social rights are marginalised in most contexts, without proper legal recognition and accountability mechanisms in place.[4] Indeed, he even questions the extent to which States treat them as human rights at all, and not just desirable long-term goals.

Despite the widespread constitutional recognition of economic and social rights, as well as an abundant scholarship on their fundamental importance, they nevertheless “remain largely invisible in the law of and institutions of the great majority of States”, according to Alston. Even many of the States that enjoy the world’s highest living standards have disregarded proposals to recognise these rights in legislative or constitutional form.[5]

Most of all, the United States has persistently rejected the idea that economic and social rights are full-fledged human rights,[6] in the sense of “rights” that might be amenable to any method of enforcement. Some of its past administrations have notoriously even challenged the “soft law” status of the ICESCR treaty, regardless that it was signed (yet not ratified) by Jimmy Carter in 1977.[7] Although the United States has ratified other treaties that clearly recognise economic and social rights,[8] it is the only developed country to insist that, in effect, its government has no obligation to safeguard the rights of citizens to jobs, housing, education and an adequate standard of living.

In their defence, governments may point out the historical progress made in reducing extreme poverty across the world, which has generally been achieved without adopting a strategy based on the full recognition of economic and social rights. But the extent to which these rights remain unmet for millions of people today is unconscionable from any kind of moral perspective. Consider that more than 60 percent of the world population struggles to live on less than $5 per day, an amount which the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has considered the minimum daily income which could reasonably be regarded as fulfilling the right to “a standard of living adequate for… health and well-being” (as stipulated in Article 25).[9]

The International Labour Organisation of the United Nations also estimates that only 27 percent of people worldwide have access to comprehensive social security systems, notwithstanding the fact that virtually every government recognises the fundamental right to social security, as also enshrined in Article 25.[10] The fact that many thousands of people continue to die each day from poverty-related causes,[11]while the number of chronically undernourished people increases once again,[12] is an affront to the very idea that everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living. Also in the most affluent nations, of course, millions of people have limited access to essential services and social protection, and vast numbers of families are homeless or seeking emergency food assistance.

Such facts demonstrate how far we have strayed from realising the modest aspiration expressed in Article 25. Gross inequalities of wealth and power are seemingly built into the structures and operations of the world economy, which gives the least priority and concern to the world’s majority poor. Its design is determined in international negotiations which are dominated by rich industrialised nations, who ensure that the major beneficiaries of global economic growth are the powerful corporate and elite interests that they basically function on behalf of.[13] Consequently, the number of billionaires continues to grow at an unprecedented rate, with combined annual increases in wealth that would be enough to end extreme poverty many times over.[14]

The duty of States to respect and support the achievement of socioeconomic rights outside of their borders may be anchored in international law, but the most influential multilateral organisations are not challenged to adhere to these agreed norms and standards. A rich literature examines the impact on less developed countries of this virtual system of global economic governance,[15] as principally upheld by the Bretton Woods Institutions, the World Trade Organisation and the Group of 7 nations. For example, most countries of the global South have been pressured to service their debt burdens by making structural adjustments at the expense of the most disadvantaged segments of society. Through such policies as privatisation, deregulation of markets and cutbacks in social services, the harsh conditionalities of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank’s lending programmes have widely hindered the ability of State’s to fulfil their human rights obligations.[16]

At the same time, many of the thousands of bilateral international treaties and free trade agreements of recent decades are incompatible with basic human rights standards in some fundamental respects.[17] In particular, the current international investment system creates rights to multinational corporations to challenge the legal and policy decisions of governments through “investor-state dispute settlement”,[18]even when those decisions are taken to meet social needs and pursue sustainable development objectives, such as reducing inequality.

Formidable obstacles

All of this points to the formidable political obstacles to implementing Article 25 through an enforceable system of international law that can offset the damaging social effects of deregulated, market-led globalisation. The challenge is well recognised by civil society groups that advocate for a new direction in economic policymaking, beginning with a reversal of the austerity measures that are now expected to affect nearly 80 percent of the global population within a couple of years.[19]

Rendering Article 25 into a truly “indivisible”, “inalienable” and “universal” human right therefore means, for example, reforming unfair tax policies that undermine the capacity of countries to invest in universal social protection systems.[20] It means rolling back the wave of commercialisation that is increasingly entering the health sector and other essential public services, with extremely negative consequences for human wellbeing.[21] And it means regulatory oversight to hold the out-of-control finance sector to account,[22] and domestic legislative action in support of a living wage and labour rights, as well as fair and progressive tax systems.

It also means, in short, a redistribution of wealth, power and income on an unprecedented scale within every society, in contradistinction to the prevailing economic ideology of our time—an ideology that falsely views economic and social rights as inimical to “wealth creation”, “economic growth” and “international competitiveness”.

But the scale of that redistribution must extend beyond national borders alone, considering the reality that developing nations are unable to fulfil the socioeconomic rights of their citizens without greater access to wealth and resources. That depends on substantial coordination and assistance from the international community, which must come in the form of bilateral aid that is no longer disbursed on the basis of geo-strategic considerations, or with a preference for privatisation and “free market” models of development.[23] At present, low-income countries are able to devote, at most, only 15 percent of gross domestic product towards meeting the basic needs of their citizenry.[24] Yet donor governments are far from helping to bridge the gap in public finances through more effective aid, despite the agreed global target of achieving “zero” extreme poverty by 2030.[25]

This only serves to underline the enormous political implications of achieving Article 25. For it is clear that rich countries prefer to extract wealth from the global South, rather than share their wealth in any meaningful way through a redistribution of resources. Yet we know the resources are available, if government priorities are fundamentally reoriented towards safeguarding the minimal guarantees of Article 25 for all peoples everywhere.[26]

To be sure, just a fraction of the amount spent on a recent US arms deal with Saudi Arabia, estimated at over $110 billion, would be enough to lift everyone above the extreme poverty line as defined by the World Bank.[27] And if concerted action was taken by the international community to phase out tax havens and prevent tax dodging by large corporations, then developing countries could recover trillions of dollars each year for human rights protection and spending on public services.[28] Achieving Article 25, therefore, is not about merely upscaling aid as a form of charity; it is about the kind of structural transformations that are necessary for everyone to enjoy dignified lives in more equal societies with economic justice.

Towards a people’s strategy

The most radical article of the Universal Declaration, in this respect, is not only Article 25 but also Article 28, which refers to the necessary arrangements of the “social and international order” wherein all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration “can be fully realised”. In other words, it is impossible to achieve a more social regulation of the world economy without dramatic adjustments in the relations between States and regions, which also needs to be reflected in more democratic structures of global governance.

For how can States implement a new global social contract, rooted in a respect for socioeconomic rights and the imperative role of international law, unless normative considerations of justice and human rights are given precedence over strategic alignments in foreign policy affairs?[29] And how can global public goods be made equitably accessible to all citizens of the world, unless the United Nations is significantly reformed and empowered to fulfil its original mandate?

As spelled out in the preamble of its Charter, the UN was always intended “to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.” However, its role in that regard has been severely curtailed by the Permanent Five and other major powers, who mainly use the United Nations as a “vehicle for the aggregation of national interests”, while constantly preventing significant reform within the Organisation.[30]

Its role in global economic governance was purposefully weakened from the outset; all the important financial and trade negotiations take place outside the UN system. And as we have seen, the policy priorities of the Bretton Woods Institutions and World Trade Organisation have grown increasingly distinct from the basic human values of the UN’s economic and social programs.[31] At the same time, the UN’s ability to hold States accountable for human rights and international law standards is severely limited by a lack of financial independence, with a budget too small to enable it to be truly effective.[32]

These are just some of the reasons why the human rights of Article 25, however simply worded and unassuming, hold the potential to revolutionise the unfair structures and rules of our unequal world. Because if those rights are vociferously advocated by enough of the world’s people, there is no gainsaying the political transformations that will unfold. That is why STWR calls on global activists to jointly herald Article 25 through massive and continual demonstrations in all countries, as set out in our flagship publication.[33]

At the least, it behoves us to contemplate the urgent necessity of achieving Article 25 as the highest international priority, which is a responsibility that obviously cannot be left to individual governments. The UN Charter famously invokes “We the Peoples”, but it is now up to us to resurrect the UN’s foundational ideal to promote social progress and better standards of life for everyone in the world. It is high time we seized upon Article 25 and reclaimed its stipulations as “a law of the will of the people”,[34] until governments finally begin to take seriously the full realisation of their pledge set forth in the Universal Declaration.

Image credit: riacale, flickr creative commons

The post As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights turns 70, it’s time to resurrect its vision of global sharing and justice appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Kate Raworth recognises that a dramatic new mindset is needed if we’re going to address the economic challenges of the 21st century. Her iconic book, Doughnut Economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist, argues that our economic activity should operate in a space that’s above a social foundation, and below an ecological ceiling. What this means in practice is that essential human rights and quality of life are delivered to everyone, but within the means and resources we have available on the planet. The doughnut of Kate’s analogy is a playful metaphor for a serious and urgent challenge being faced by the world’s population. Triodos Bank caught up with Kate to ask more about her perspective on modern economics, and how we can create a system that works within the limits of her theory.

Sharing instead of redistributing

Your economic model is now six years old. Have we made any progress?

We have. I consider the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) to be an essential step. They are much more ambitious than their predecessors, the Millennium Goals. They compromise the systems that sustain life on earth and are designed for all countries, not just the South. The SDG’s are a positive development, but I think we should be able to break through the ceiling of our imagination. The question is: can we design a system to improve things? That, in my opinion, should be our ambition: to develop activities that are distributive and generative from the start.

What exactly do you mean by ‘distributive by design’?

We usually talk about redistributing the wealth that is initially in the hands of a small group of people. That is the core of the 20th century model: redistribution of income afterwards, through e.g. progressive taxes and other means. This means that certain groups can keep questioning this redistribution over and over again. The distributive concept of the 21st century is about choosing to design our activities in such a way that they share the value from the start, instead of redistributing it afterwards.

Distributive by design starts with the question: who owns the wealth? The 21st century is not about redistribution but about sharing the sources of wealth from the start. And it is not just about the money, but also about land, companies, the ability to create money. What about the ownership of technology, who will own our robots? How do we treat our knowledge? Does it not make sense that innovative ideas originating from publicly funded research should be accessible to everyone?

The core of the challenge, then, is in reinventing the way we create value in our economy and share it from the start. You can do this with alternative forms of ownership of companies, like employee-owned companies or co-operations. Or you could anchor it as a target in the company’s Articles. Another way of integrating the sharing of value in the design is not to freeze them in patents but instead let them circulate freely among the commons. That way they travel through society, research communities can use them and develop them further. Another way still is to work with local currencies that connect and empower new initiatives.

Money with patience

The economy should not just share value. It should also be generative?

Yes. We seem to find it normal that a company focuses on realizing but one kind of value – financial profit – and in addition, keeps it for itself and its shareholder. It is very much the mentality of the 20th century: how much money is in it for me? You could describe it as an extractive economy, as over-exploitation taking away valuable resources from the community.

The 21st century, generative model has a different baseline. The question now is: how many kinds of value can I integrate in my company’s design to make sure that I can give value back to society and the environment? I keep meeting entrepreneurs, designers, urban developers, etc. who adhere to this new mentality with such vigor! As social entrepreneurs they want to create value that flows back to the community, forms of value that are easier to share. As a company, why would you strive to only reducing your negative impact on the environment when you can just as easily generate a positive impact? So instead of reducing emission of greenhouse gases, you start generating renewable energy and you share it with your surroundings. The same goes for the social domain, whereby companies actively contribute to the wellbeing of their neighbourhood or community.

What role do you see for the financial world?

That is the million-dollar question. First, we should investigate how to collect money in a 21st century way. That leads us to ethical banks, money with patience, and at first even philanthropy, to get things going. All of those are important sources for money because their values are in line with those of the companies they are supporting. Within the existing 20th century money industry we could do this through our pension funds. Could we restructure them so that they become value-driven? Can we enable people to change to such ethical pension funds? Besides that, we obviously need clear legislation. But I focus mostly on finding new forms of financing that are suited for 21st century businesses.

And that is where Triodos Bank comes in. The bank pays attention to these new kinds of entrepreneurship that are essential for the future. Triodos consciously uses money to create positive social, ecological and cultural change. It is an excellent example of a company with a lively target, aimed at distributive and generative companies whose values go way beyond the financial profit that stays within the company.

Between the markets and the commons

How would you rate the potential of our digital networks?

We underestimate their power. They enable citizens to get organized on different levels and at minimal costs. Take Wikipedia, the citizens’ encyclopedia. Or Linux, an open source operating system used by organizations all over the globe. These are tools which allow citizens to build their own networks.

At the moment, a few companies hold monopolies, like Facebook and Amazon, but it does not necessarily have to stay that way. People can be active in different networks. We can be on Facebook, but at the same time join local networks and exchange information and knowledge about our city. I foresee a big increase in open-source networks for specific cities and communities. We underestimate what these networks could mean for citizens who want to collaborate and connect.

The new possibilities to work digitally and open source are leading to a whole new generation of innovative entrepreneurs who have begun to operate on the border between the markets and the commons. Your company may be small, but if you share your ideas with the commons, you will have access to a global research team. New business models will see the light. And they are successful precisely because they are open source. We are looking at an immense quest for alternatives, which might explain why my book was so well received. More and more people are looking for an alternative concept of what our economy should look like and which purpose it should serve.

Kate Raworth is a renegade economist focused on exploring the economic mindset needed to address the 21st century’s social and ecological challenges, and is the creator of the Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries. She is a Senior Visiting Research Associate at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, where she teaches on the Masters in Environmental Change and Management. She is also a Senior Associate at the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership.

Original source: Triodos Bank

The post Doughnut economics: an economic model for the future appeared first on P2P Foundation.

In a unique investigation of the subject, Share The World’s Resources (STWR) founder Mohammed Mesbahi has set out a strategic vision for how to realise the very highest ideal of a basic income worldwide. He argues that a truly universal and unconditional basic income is ultimately feasible within each nation, coordinated under the auspices of the United Nations. Yet this will initially depend on an unparalleled degree of public support for the cause of ending hunger and needless deprivation, based on a fairer sharing of the world’s resources.

That is the only path, writes Mesbahi, for a basic income policy to uphold the fundamental human rights of all. And if pursued with this motivation, it is a pioneering and honourable path that inherently says: ‘above all nations is humanity’.

STWR’s latest publication is closely related to Mesbahi’s two recent works that also examine popular intellectual discourses in a similarly holistic way, in relation to the contemporary ideas of the ‘commons’ and the ‘sharing economy’. Yet the emergent discourse about a universal basic income is perhaps closest to the heart of STWR’s principal concerns, as reflected in the slogan for the 10th Basic Income Week: “Redistribute the wealth, here and everywhere!”

However, few advocates for a basic income contemplate its implementation in a definitively universal or planetary sense, as Mesbahi sets out to investigate in this inspirational treatise for activists and concerned citizens.

While the publication is principally aimed at advocates within the basic income movements across the world, it is also hoped that lay readers can easily read and benefit from the author’s intuitive observations. With this in mind, a number of explanatory and contextual notes are included at the end to help clarify where STWR stands on some of the technical issues, and also to help provide some introductory material for interested newcomers to this important (although somewhat controversial) policy proposal.

An excerpt of our new book, ‘Towards a universal basic income for all humanity’, is available online here.

To purchase a copy of the book, please contact [email protected]

Further resources: 

Towards a universal basic income for all humanity

Heralding Article 25: A people’s strategy for world transformation

17th BIEN Congress on “Implementing a Basic Income”

10th international Basic Income Week 18-24 sept. 2017

Image credit: Andrew J. Nilsen, Fast Company

The post New STWR publication: a strategic vision for the basic income movement appeared first on P2P Foundation.

STWR is a campaigning group based in London, founded by Mohammed Mesbahi in 2003, with consultative status at the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC). Through our research and activities, we make a case for integrating the principle of sharing into world affairs as a pragmatic solution to a broad range of interconnected crises that governments are currently failing to address – including hunger, poverty, climate change, environmental degradation, and conflict over the world’s natural resources. We also advocate for an international programme of emergency relief to prevent life-threatening deprivation and end poverty-related deaths as a foremost global priority.

The subject of our presentation is specifically about the prospects for achieving a Basic Income as a fundamental right for all people’s in all nations. Our approach is therefore from a global perspective, concerning how we can address the deeply complex and interrelated crises listed above, all of which are essentially caused by the structural injustice built into our economic systems. We are going to talk about how we need to change the way we look at the world both as individuals and collectively, and how we will need massive civic engagement and participation in order to make the changes we need in the world. Our governments have failed us again and again, all the aforementioned crises are generally worsening, so any lasting solution has to come from all of us, the ordinary men and women of goodwill. We don’t see any alternative.

We want to address the state of the world against the backdrop of knowing that life is inherently One, that humanity is one indivisible Whole, despite the fragmentation and disconnection we may feel from others, both near and far. This concept of ‘Oneness’ is backed up by numerous fields of scientific investigation, from the complex and intricate web of life presented by the field of ecology, to biological research and the conclusions reached by quantum physics. For those who resonate with spiritual ideas, many spiritual teachings down the ages also point to the Oneness, indivisibility and interconnectedness of all life.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, consisting of 30 Articles, was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, and was signed up to by all governments, but it is still not fully guaranteed for the majority of citizens worldwide. Article 25 states that:

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Before reading any further, you may like to take a few moments to imagine a just and sustainable world in which Article 25 has been truly implemented, with sharing and cooperation at the heart of how we live as a united human race. Imagine that all the basic needs of everyone are met, with everyone having enough to eat, somewhere to live, free healthcare, and freedom from having to worry about money. Think about how that might look, how people might be spending their time differently and so on. Imagine the hope that millions of people who are currently in dire poverty would be feeling for the first time. Imagine how that could change how we relate to one another.

Unfortunately, the current reality in the world today is very different from this hopeful vision. So, how did we get here? How have we come to feel so complacent and indifferent to the suffering of others, thereby allowing their suffering to continue? Because rather than recognising our Oneness and instituting that recognition in our social and economic structures, we have been living with an illusory sense of separation from one another for countless generations, fuelled by our collective selfishness, greed, competition and nationalism – themes that can be seen running through all the structures we have created, which are further exacerbated by the sense of separation that is reflected in our different religions, political parties, racial identities and so on.

In addition, the process of rampant commercialisation over recent decades, which we are all complicit in to some degree, is ever deepening the divide between us all, and deepening the stark wealth inequalities within and among countries. There are many divisions and conflicts going on around the world, all of which have the potential to escalate into a third world war – although this time such a war is likely to be nuclear, and could destroy all life on Earth.

From this holistic perspective, our narrow education systems have effectively turned us into an assembly line of ‘good consumers’, and almost every aspect of our lives, it seems, has become commodified and commercialised, with everything geared towards profit-making. This psychologically engrained and systemic process of commercialisation is leading to an ever-worsening overuse and waste of precious resources, destruction of the environment, climate change, droughts and other natural disasters, as well as growing inequalities and heart-breaking poverty and destitution which sees 795 million people suffering from chronic hunger, and around 21,000 people a day dying of starvation, malnutrition, or other poverty-related causes.

Indeed we are living through the biggest food security crises the world has ever known, with unprecedented levels of hunger and the prospect of famine looming in many countries like Yemen, South Sudan, Nigeria and Somalia, whilst in other parts of the world food rots away in storehouses.

The world is also witnessing the largest refugee crisis since the Second World War, with over 65 million people displaced due to droughts, conflicts and poverty. Officially, 1 in 113 people in the world are now displaced. The sheer level and magnitude of this suffering is difficult to conceive in our awareness. We don’t seem to realise how little help people around the world receive for lessening their poverty and suffering. At least 70% of the global population don’t have access to any form of welfare or social protection. It is hard to imagine the anguish which must be experienced watching your children suffering from acute malnutrition, or even starving to death. Stories such as those of impoverished mothers in Mexico, who boil stones in a pan in order to calm their hungry children who think this means food must be coming, conjure up a desperate picture of the plight of many in the world.

Suffering in the richest countries is also increasing, with widening inequality evidenced by the growing use of food banks, and a rise in homelessness despite numerous reports that empty properties outnumber each homeless person many times over. The post-war welfare systems that were established to care for the poor, unemployed, sick or disabled are often becoming more stringent and cruel, and in many developed countries their running has been handed over to private companies.

Successive governments the world over have not only failed to deal with our growing crises, but they have increasingly allowed market forces to become a rampant influence in social, economic and political affairs. So-called ‘well educated’ people in positions of power are either directly or indirectly destroying the planet and people’s lives, deepening all of our converging crises. It seems that humanity is at a crossroads, and faced with a dire choice – either for our governments to cooperate to share the world’s resources (of which there are enough for everyone if more equitably distributed, despite our current overpopulation), or we continue along the same path of division and destruction to the point of no return, which if our climate scientists are to be believed, will be within a very short time frame. Given that it is evident that our governments are not going to suddenly wake up to reality, what options does this leave us with? How can we get from where we are now, to that just and sustainable world we were imagining at the beginning?

In the context of these critical global issues, the call for a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is one of the most important social movements of our time, and is being discussed by an increasing number of groups around the world as a potential way of providing financial security for all individuals. This proposal has become very popular as a potential policy tool to help overcome a number of the crises mentioned above – specifically those of social welfare, poverty and inequality – and indeed there are even many environmental justifications.

At STWR, we argue that before genuine UBI schemes can be implemented throughout the world, governments must first commit to a massive redistribution of global resources, something akin to the vision of the 1980 Brandt report, entitled ‘‘North-South: A programme for survival’, which advocated for an international emergency programme and a major restructuring of the global economic architecture. The importance of sharing the world’s resources in connection with realising full UBI scheme across the world should not be underestimated.

In simple terms, each nation would be compelled to make an inventory of the surplus resources they have at their disposal, including technology, knowledge, manpower and institutional capacity, as well as food, medicines, manufactured products, and any other basic materials or essential goods. A large-scale transfer of these resources to the poorest countries and regions would have to be organised through the United Nations and its global network of aid agencies, or through a new United Nations agency that is set up for the express purpose of overseeing an emergency programme which may have to continue for several years. In line with Brandt’s vision, this emergency programme could go a long way to abolishing hunger and paving the way for longer term structural changes to the global economy.

Sadly, such a vision is far from the preoccupations of world leaders today who remain beholden to powerful corporate and financial interests, and show no sign of representing all people’s needs through genuine international cooperation and economic sharing. Hence only through galvanizing the ordinary people of the world with a united demand will governments be persuaded to come together and shift their priorities to work towards this goal. No longer, then, would they be able to think solely in terms of what is best for their own national elite interests, but they would have to think of the common good of the world as a whole.

We are not suggesting that a global call for implementing Article 25 through an emergency programme is a substitute for demanding a UBI – they are both equally important. But a partial Basic Income on its own, implemented within only certain countries that can afford to, is unlikely to have the lasting effect we aim for. Many countries have already adopted small pilot schemes with generally successful results, but so far no government has committed itself to establish a full UBI scheme as a constitutional right for all its citizens – let alone the prospect of organising a truly universal basic income on a multilateral basis.

Perhaps such a vision might stand a chance in a more stable world where commercialisation is no longer dictating global policies and where countries work together for the common good, but that is clearly far from reality when the state of our world is increasingly uncertain and volatile. Anything could happen at any time and the financial sector is particularly unstable. Some well-known economists around the world have said it’s not a matter of IF but of WHEN the next financial crash will happen. If they are right, it will be much larger than the last one and will cripple many countries. Do we really think that governments will still consider a genuine Basic Income if that happens? Surely, the idea would be wiped off the table at a stroke, and the plight of the people would be forgotten once more. But if a global movement calling for Article 25had already influenced governments to agree to an emergency programme as outlined above, it would be a very different situation.

The implications of successfully implementing Article 25 would be manifold as governments would be obliged to meet the needs of their people before the profit-interests of major corporations. Some examples of likely social and economic transformations are highlighted by Mohammed Mesbahi in his book ‘Heralding Article 25: A people’s strategy for world transformation’, which include:

• an end to life-threatening poverty and hunger – if our first priority is to redistribute food and essential resources to the most impoverished world regions
• an end to land grabs
• an end to food speculation and the hoarding and destroying of food to affect market prices;
• an end to the commercialisation of public services
• de-escalation of military activity alongside steep cuts in armaments budgets as resources are redirected to the people
• population levels may eventually decrease and stabilise, as it is well known that poverty is an underlying factor in the rapid population growth of the past 60 or 70 years.
• trade rules would become fairer
• unpayable sovereign debts would be cancelled
• tax havens would be closed down
• increased North-South cooperation through an emergency programme, with further manifold implications. In particular, intergovernmental cooperation may lead to the prospect of attaining international consensus on legally binding targets for meaningful carbon emissions reductions.

Having outlined the logical case for implementing Article 25, the remaining question is how we are going to persuade all the governments of the world to finally guarantee Article 25 and a UBI. After so many years of political inaction, we suggest it is only the massed goodwill of ordinary people calling for Article 25 and a UBI that can bring about an end to poverty in a world of plenty through enormous, peaceful and continuous protests around the world.

We have often heard the term “We are many, they are few” or “Not for the few but for the many” from various progressive groups. Politicians like Bernie Sanders in America and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, who appear to hear and represent the call for a more just and sustainable world, could not have got as far as they have done were it not for the ordinary people who support them. So can we imagine what an impact millions of people around the globe would have, if they gathered and stood behind one single idea? The interrelated causes for guaranteeing the human rights of Article 25 and implementing a UBI are both unifying, transformative ideas. Article 25 is such a simple statement of basic socioeconomic rights, so easily understood, that it could appeal to broad swathes of the general public who may feel themselves to be disconnected from politics, or feel overwhelmed about the complexity and number of issues at stake.

As a unifying slogan, goal and vision, Article 25 could bring together rich and poor alike. Who could argue that we shouldn’t all have access to these basics, no matter where we live in the world, or in what circumstances? People living in abject poverty in the most neglected slums and villages could understand the concepts of Article 25 and a Basic Income, whereas they might not understand what the Occupy Movement was about, or even the Arab Spring. Yet the complete realisation of Article 25 worldwide is the key to resolving so many other problems. It is the path of least resistance. In fact, embedded within it is all the demands of global activists throughout history up to the present day. It is the surest route we have for impelling our governments to redistribute the world’s resources and restructure the global economy.

But is it possible? We have seen recent activist movements, like Occupy or Nuit Debut, which quickly spread to different countries. Although they were not sustained for a long enough period of time and therefore did not achieve the desired results, we have seen historically that ongoing protest can work if it is sustained for long enough, for example the suffragette movement winning women the vote in the UK and the civil rights movement in America. A 2014 film entitled ‘We Are Many’  explored the 2003 worldwide demonstrations against the war in Iraq, with many of the commentators pointing to the necessity for the protests to be continual, rather than for just one day, in order to have been successful.

STWR produced the aforementioned book, ‘Heralding Article 25’, to give readers a clearer understanding of why only continuous mass demonstrations will achieve the end goal. The book argues that only through uniting ordinary people on a global level, with an informed mind and a compassionate heart that asks “what about the others?”, can we shift the priorities of our governments.

Lobbying our politicians on domestic issues alone will never be enough. We need millions upon millions of people to march for Article 25 and a UBI, without cessation – and just one spark could set off many similar demonstrations around the globe, until it becomes like a wildfire that cannot be extinguished. We envision that such protests would be truly global like nothing that has gone before, based on one simple and benevolent cause that anyone in the world can understand. They would have to continue indefinitely and in massive numbers, representing a new approach to activism and movement building that is built upon the involvement of countless millions of ordinary people, simultaneously in all countries.

In conclusion, we are facing many global challenges today and they equally need global solutions. We have all the technology at our fingertips to rapidly change the world, for better or worse. Yet we continue to rely on our governments to do the right thing on our behalf, which has left much of the public-at-large complacent to the suffering that is all around us. But if we could really and truly understand that the suffering of one person is also our suffering, that we cannot separate ourselves from the other, then maybe we would act differently.

The world is an interconnected living being and if one part of it is sick, then that sickness will eventually spread to the rest of the world. We can see this very clearly in the recent mass migration of refugees and impoverished economic migrants to Europe. What happens to the poorest of our citizens also affects us, as we are one human family, hence we must start to act as one humanity – we cannot limit our actions to just local levels alone. So let us not only fight for our privileged rights in the West, but let us fight together for all our brothers and sisters, the forgotten ones that are dying of hunger every day, and let us end their plight once and for all. Let’s give them hope for the first time in their lives.

Further resources:

Share The World’s Resources at the BIEN Congress in Lisbon, Portugal in September 2017

Article 25 and a Universal Basic Income: the perfect match

New STWR publication: a strategic vision for the basic income movement

Heralding Article 25: A people’s strategy for world transformation

The post Implementing Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a basic income guarantee appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Introduction

The US economy’s deep systemic inequalities of income, wealth, power, and opportunity are part of global inequality trends, but US-style capitalism and public policy make inequalities more acute. Their observable and felt harm to our civic and economic life is corroborated by research from many disciplines. Yet, by the same token, moving toward a more egalitarian society would realign most aspects of economic and social life for the better. So how can we bring these changes about?

For starters, we must know what we are up against. These inequalities do not spring mainly from technological change and globalization, though both compound and complicate the rift. Instead, imbalances of power and agency embedded in our political and economic system are the main drivers and accelerators of inequality.

Reducing inequality requires a “next systems” analysis and playbook. Here, we briefly examine our current inequality predicament and show how these inequalities undermine our democracy, economic stability, social cohesion, and other cherished values. We then explore the systemic causes, perpetuators, and superchargers of inequalities and, finally, evaluate policy interventions and pressure points for leveling them.

The path through this thicket is only partly uncharted. The United States can learn from other advanced industrial countries with significantly less inequality, adapting policies and practices to US needs and circumstances. We can also learn from our own history—from understanding that our rigged rules have been racially biased—to how we dramatically reduced inequality between 1940 and 1975.

That said, part of the path is uncharted. Grappling with climate change and other breached ecological boundaries—whether ocean acidification, fresh water contamination, or methane dumping—intensifies the challenges of reducing extreme inequality. And many of the New Deal and post-World War II policies that reduced inequality for earlier generations won’t work now given today’s levels of population, resource consumption, and ecological risk.

Together, the extent and widely felt effects of inequality challenge us to put a fine-tuned combination of historical insights, policy innovations, best practices, and fresh thinking to the test. Just as urgently, we also need a vision of a more equal and opportunity-rich society.

• Download a short overview of key takeaways
• Download the executive summary
• Download the full report

Further resources: 

How We Can Transition to a Bottom Up Economy – Chuck Collins, YES! Magazine

Original source: The Next System Project 

Photo by Fazik93

The post Reversing inequality: Unleashing the transformative potential of an equitable economy appeared first on P2P Foundation.

New economic arrangements also need to reverse decades of privatisation, corporate control and profiteering over the Earth’s natural resources (such as water, oil, gas and minerals) so that nations can share the global commons more equitably and sustainably. This presents an epochal challenge for the international community at a time when humanity as a whole is already consuming resources and emitting waste and pollutants 50% faster than they can be replenished or reabsorbed.

Clearly this state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely, and governments may eventually be forced – through public pressure or intensifying ecological catastrophe – to abandon the current economic logic in favour of a cooperative strategy for sharing the world rather than keeping it divided. Two basic prerequisites will remain essential to successfully negotiating such a transition. Firstly, governments have to accept the need to limit resource use in both national and global terms. Instead of the endless drive to increase economic growth and maximise profits, the goal of economic policy must shift towards a sustainable sufficiency in which nations aim to maximise well-being and guarantee ‘enough’ for everybody, rather than encouraging the consumption of ‘more’ of everything.

Secondly, nations will have to collectively formulate a recognition that natural resources form part of our shared commons, and should therefore be managed in a way that benefits all people as well as future generations. This important reconceptualization could enable a shift away from today’s private and State ownership models, and towards a new form of global resource management based on non-ownership and trusteeship.

Transitioning to a sustainable world

New governance regimes for sharing natural resources could take many forms. For example, in line with the Common Heritage of Humankind principle that already exists in international law, many of the commons that are truly global in nature, like the oceans and atmosphere, could be held in a global public trust and managed by elected representatives, or else by newly created United Nations agencies. Another option for governments is to maintain sovereignty over the natural resources held within their jurisdiction, but agree to a coordinated international programme of sustainable use of those resources and the sharing of national surpluses.

Such economic arrangements may finally make it possible for governments to progressively reduce and equalise global consumption levels so that every person can meet their needs within the limits of a finite planet. To achieve this, over-consuming countries would have to take the lead in significantly reducing their national resource use, while less developed countries increase theirs until a convergence in levels of material throughput and carbon emissions is eventually reached. At the same time, a progressively tighter cap on the overall rate at which nations consume resources could ensure that global consumption patterns are gradually but definitely reduced to a sustainable level. To facilitate this dramatic shift towards ‘fair share’ ecological footprints, the international community will also need to adopt a low-carbon development strategy by significantly reducing dependence on non-renewable fuels and investing heavily in alternative sources of clean energy.

The implications of implementing any form of global mechanism for sharing natural resources cannot be underestimated. For example, the transition to an era of cooperative resource management is dependent on more inclusive governance at all levels, the democratisation of global institutions (including the United Nations), and a shift in power relations from North to South. An orderly transition will inevitably have to be negotiated and coordinated by UN Member States, which presupposes a degree of international cooperation that is increasingly lacking today. World leaders have yet to move beyond the self-interest and aggressive competition that characterises foreign policy, and are heavily invested in maintaining the dominant economic model that prioritises short-term business interests ahead of a healthy ecosystem and social justice.

Hence we cannot wait for governments to rethink the management of an economic system built upon endless consumption and competition over scarce resources. A solution to global environmental and resource security crises can only be brought about by the active engagement of civil society, with concerted efforts to overcome the corporate and political forces that stand in the way of creating a truly cooperative and sharing world.

The text above is taken from ‘A primer on global economic sharing‘.

Photo credit: JazzmYn*, flickr creative commons

The post Sharing the global commons appeared first on P2P Foundation.

For many years now, STWR has made the case for a massive mobilisation of civil society around the issue of life-threatening poverty and hunger. Our basic advocacy position as an organisation could not be simpler: that the urgent need for world rehabilitation must begin with a united people’s voice that speaks on behalf of the least advantaged, giving the highest priority to the prevention of extreme human deprivation in every country. We submit that only through a universal demand for a fairer sharing of global resources can we begin to see a gradual reversal of disastrous current trends, even in terms of regional conflicts and environmental degradation. Yet this will require millions upon millions of ordinary people out on the streets in constant, peaceful demonstrations that are focused on the need for governments to redistribute essential resources to the most marginalised people of the world.

Ending hunger and poverty-related suffering is obviously not enough to shift the world onto a just and sustainable course, but – as we have reiterated in dozens of publications – we cannot underestimate the knock-on effects of this unprecedented show of global solidarity. Simple as the vision is, however, it may appear as if society is moving ever further away from such an appeal to our common humanity and compassion. With the rise of fascist parties in Europe, the recent election of a billionaire demagogue as president of the United States, and a widespread populist reaction against welcoming the growing multitudes of refugees and poor immigrants, what hope do we have of realising a truly global movement of ordinary citizens that is motivated by the acute suffering of others?

There may be high-profile media coverage about the proliferating humanitarian crises in Syria, Yemen, Nigeria and elsewhere, but we still barely hear about the hidden crisis of chronic hunger and malnutrition that afflicts up to 2.5 billion people, and leads to thousands of needless deaths every day. While committed NGOs and UN agencies work ceaselessly to ameliorate the worst effects of this shameless human catastrophe, we can only conclude that the lack of media attention given to its true scale is indicative of the lack of interest, the lack of concern or the sheer complacency of the public at large.

We can advocate for globally redistributive policies for as long as we like, but we will never see a complete turnaround in governmental priorities without this critical new actor on the world stage: a colossal movement of massed goodwill based on a single platform of universally shared concerns. That is why, at the centre of STWR’s proposals, is the call for activists and engaged citizens the world over to uphold Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as their protest slogan, goal and vision in the time ahead. As expounded in our flagship publication, a ceaseless call for implementing Article 25 is the ‘path of least resistance’ towards uniting citizens of both rich and poor societies, thereby impelling governments to redistribute resources and restructure the global economy. It is also the surest path towards reclaiming the United Nations as an organisation that belongs to ‘we the people’, potentially leading to a major democratisation of the UN system if governments are compelled to implement the principle of sharing into world affairs.

Yet there is no hope of realising a consummate vision of universal rights and global equality without another critical factor, one that is seldom acknowledged by progressive political thinkers—namely, the engagement of the heart. STWR’s founder, Mohammed Mesbahi, has written a pioneering series of studies that revolve around this core theme, in which he articulates the need for a new kind of global activism that is no longer oriented ‘against’ the system or any ‘ism’, but is instead motivated by an inclusive call for economic sharing that can mobilise countless ordinary citizens across diverse continents with a common cause. It is futile to become ‘anti’ any belief or ideology, he argues, such as to go against capitalism; it is time to put capitalism in its right place and redistribute the world’s resources to where they are most needed.

It is also necessary to realise that we cannot make the world a better place, writes Mesbahi, without first looking after the most vulnerable people; and that means demanding from our governments an emergency relief programme to urgently prevent life-threatening conditions of deprivation across the world. Mesbahi makes it clear that a peaceful uprising of the public towards these ends is the very first stage in a process of world reconstruction, and it is the youth who can lead this formidable cause by following the simple instructions that are embedded within his continuing works. Activists in the United States, for example, would do well to heed and broadly disseminate the directives given in ‘Rise Up America, Rise Up!’, where a strategic case is made for reviving the Occupy movement through around-the-clock demonstrations that surround the UN headquarters in New York with a concerted focus on Article 25. Never before have we witnessed vast numbers of people in the streets calling for the abolition of extreme poverty in this manner, as expressed in ceaseless actions of solidarity that invite other nations to follow the same course of action.

However utopian this proposition may sound, it assumes nothing more than redirecting public attention towards immediate human need, which is far from an attempt to satisfy some vague or idealistic theory of world revolution. The only kind of revolution we need in the present context of widespread penury amidst plenty, of declining aid budgets amidst the escalation of human suffering, of economic austerity amidst increasingly concentrated wealth… is a psychological revolution that is defined by the common sense of an engaged heart. That again is the subject that preoccupies Mesbahi’s writings, and we would all do well to ponder what it means for us personally in our everyday lives, especially at this time of celebration and profligate consumerism at Christmas. For what does it mean to celebrate Christmas with love and goodwill when millions of men, women and children in poverty-stricken regions are deprived of the basic necessities of life, let alone the luxury of a Christmas banquet? As Mesbahi writes in ‘Christmas, the system and I’;

“In light of all the suffering and critical problems in the world, what better way to celebrate Christmas this year than to go out in the streets and peacefully demonstrate for an end to poverty and injustice. To say: no more cutting of trees! No more buying extravagant presents! And then to raise our voices for all the world’s people to be fed, cared for and nourished. Wouldn’t that be the best Christmas we have ever known, considering the fact that thousands of people are dying each day from poverty-related causes? Because then we would not only express our loyalty and affection for our own family and friends, but we would also stand in loving unity with the entire world. If Jesus were walking among us today, perhaps that is what He would call on us to do.”

This is the essential message that STWR will continue to spread in 2017 by whatever means we can, through our website and online networks, and in conferences and other fora. As the world situation continues to deteriorate, and as the reactions of love and hate continue to polarise our societies, the responsibility of people of goodwill to uphold the case for sharing has never been greater. Everywhere there is evidence that a new awareness is growing by the day, embracing the necessity of sharing as a last response to our culminating crises. Thus it may not be long until the rich world population finally joins forces with the poor, and together forges an enormous public opinion in favour of sharing the world’s resources.

The post The case for sharing and hope in 2017 appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Managing a Commons

Space is generally thought of as a commons. A commons is a resource which is not under the exclusive control of anyone. This makes it an interesting and challenging economic coordination problem. The US Department of Defense classifies outer space as one of the “global commons” alongside the oceans, atmosphere, and cyberspace.

Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy, and Shawn Brimley of the Center for a New American Security write:

“…as rising nations and non-state actors become more powerful, the United States will need to pay more attention to emerging risks associated with the global commons, those areas of the world beyond the control of any one state—sea, space, air, and cyberspace—that constitute the fabric or connective tissue of the international system.”

Even during the heated Space Race between the United States and the USSR, there were lofty ideals about how to treat the cosmos. The Outer Space Treaty, ratified by all major world powers at the time, limits the use of orbital pathways and celestial bodies to peaceful purposes. Weapons of mass destruction are specifically banned. More interestingly, it also prohibits any signatory nation from claiming ownership of celestial resources.

The resources of space were not to be seen as just a bunch of loot waiting to be plundered. According to the Treaty, managing outer space was viewed as an international responsibility of utmost importance, for the benefit of all.

New Space Race

But a new space race is on. This time, a private space race. Billionaires are funding serious commercial spaceflight companies such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, Planetary Resources, Virgin Galactic, Stratolaunch Systems, and Bigelow Aerospace, and other lesser-known private companies and defense contractors are also competing. Additionally, competitions like the Google Lunar X Prize are under way. All of these enterprises share the goal of making space more accessible.

Elon Musk once raised the possibility of launching as many as four thousand micro-satellites into low Earth orbit for the purpose of providing worldwide high-speed internet access. Mark Zuckerberg had planned a similar service  via Internet.org. Both men have quietly put these plans on the back-burner; however, the inexorable trend of cheaper spaceflight is continuing to increase satellite congestionsurrounding Earth.

The progress that SpaceX has made with reusable launch vehicles does help reduce the quantity of space junk per-launch, but it also makes spaceflight cheaper thus encouraging more congestion. Junk continues to accumulate much faster than it is burned up.

Kessler Syndrome

Space junk is any small debris left in orbit by spacecraft. The problem is that it can impact orbiting spacecraft at speeds up to twenty times faster than a bullet. Worse yet, in the event of a collision, more debris is created.

In the worst-case scenario, this process of collisions creating more debris starts a chain reaction called Kessler Syndrome. If there are enough orbiting satellites, this chain reaction can eventually consume all of them, and leave behind a speeding cloud of bullets encircling the Earth and keeping humanity grounded for a century or more.

In political economy, we would call this an example of tragedy of the commons.

To reduce this threat, a number of mechanisms have been proposed. Decommissioning large obsolete satellites can significantly reduce the likelihood. However, doing so is expensive and of little direct benefit to the individual spacefaring organization. Nonetheless, the European Space Agency has already planned missions as part of its Clean Space initiative.

Another theoretical mitigation technique includes the development of lasers to shoot down space junk, or to redirect it whenever it threatens important orbital spacecraft.

Financing cleanup efforts

Who ought to be paying for these cleanup efforts? If billionaires intend to start launching thousands of satellites, is it simply up to the public to clean up the mess?

The ‘polluter pays principle’ is standard in environmental law. In addition to aligning with our moral intuitions for responsibility, taxes on pollution have the benefit of discouraging the damaging activities that create pollution in the first place.

In keeping with this thought, it would be sensible to propose a Pigouvian tax on anyone who creates space junk, in proportion to the amount of junk that they create. Since this junk can be accurately detected, it would be straightforward to measure and determine the tax.

Amending the Outer Space Treaty and establishing a body to implement the polluter pays principle would be a common sense method by which we could work to eliminate the threat of space junk.

There’s another possible source of revenue if we consider that the orbital paths themselves are a finite resource. Satellite collisions have happened in the past and will continue going forward. Indeed, every satellite launched brings with it a small risk of collision. In fact, it has happened before. And the more satellites we have, the greater the likelihood of collision and, eventually, of triggering Kessler Syndrome.

Certain orbital pathways are more desirable than others. Geo-stationary orbits might be more desirable than low Earth orbit; a sun-synchronous orbit may be more desirable than an alternative orbit. If billionaires start launching thousands of satellites, it is entirely possible that we could eventually be forced to allocate these orbital paths by auction, in order to fund general collision insurance.

Such a model would certainly be more fair and predictable than our current process, which is for companies to patent orbital pathways, and sue anyone who infringes on it (regardless of collision risk). Granted, the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation also has a permitting process in the United States. But permitting practices vary by nation, and there’s little or no international coordination for revenue-sharing, insurance, or cleanup.

Motherboard interviewed Andrew Rush, a patent attorney and entrepreneur with expertise in space law, who said “As more and more companies start commercial activities using satellites, and using new and innovative ways to do so, we should see an uptick in patent activity.”

“We may also see the attendant uptick in patent litigation around some of those activities,” he added. “I personally hope that’s not the direction that we go. I hope there’s a lot more licensing and a lot more cooperative ownership and stewardship of patents, rather than just suing each other. “

An exemplary model of proper resource management can be found in the Norwegian Oil Fund. Upon discovery of its oil reserves, Norway instituted the collection of economic rent based on the revenue generated from oil extraction, plus oil exploration licensing fees. The resulting revenue was then kept in a trust fund and used to invest both within Norway and internationally. As of June 2015, the fund has accrued $873 billion. Given its size and stake in companies worldwide, the fund has become an significant player in international affairs. As such, it pursues economic and social justice through its decisions concerning its holdings, divesting from companies that violate its ethical standards.

If our civilization is able to use market pricing to collect economic rent from the Earth’s geosynchronous orbits, we would enjoy similar success as Norway while preserving a critical resource. Such concepts are already proving successful here on Earth. London uses congestion pricing to reduce traffic in its city center, and uses that revenue to fund public transportation. Congestion in space is ultimately no different.

Let’s preserve our common inheritance of space for future generations, not at the expense of our current generation, but by achieving justice. We all deserve to share the benefits and the value of outer space.

The post Who owns geosynchronous orbital pathways? appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The recent 15th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade towers was a reminder of the terrible consequences when a nation ignores the lessons of history—including its own recent history. The U.S. military budget is a tragic example.

We currently spend roughly $598 billion on defense, which is more than the next seven biggest military spenders combined: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan. This represents 54 percent of federal discretionary spending. In return, we get an ability to rapidly deploy conventional military power anywhere in the world.

The 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center was the most devastating foreign-sourced attack on the United States since the War of 1812. It was carried out by a largely self-organized band of 19 religious fanatics of varied nationalities, affiliated with a small, dispersed, and loosely organized international network. We responded by invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. This led to hundreds of thousands of pointless deaths, destabilization of the Middle East, and a cost to the U.S. Treasury of some $4 trillion to $6 trillion.

I view all this in part through the lens of my experience as an Air Force captain during the Vietnam War. I briefed pilots headed for Vietnam on the psychological consequences of bombing civilian populations. I later served in the Defense Department’s office overseeing defense-related behavioral and social science research.

The available research on the psychological consequences of bombing was clear and predictable: It unifies the civilian population, just as 9/11 unified the U.S. population. The same is true for mass military operations against dispersed combatants who blend in with and are indistinguishable from civilian populations. Conventional military operations work only when there are clearly identifiable military targets that can be hit with limited collateral harm to civilians.

The United States bears no risk of invasion by a foreign military force. And the terrorist threat, which comes from bands of loosely affiliated political extremists, is substantially overblown. Furthermore, it is fueled by the much greater security threats created by environmental abuse, global corporate overreach, and the social divisions of extreme inequality. Under circumstances of growing physical and social stress from environmental devastation and inequality, politics easily turns violent. Violence is all the more certain when people feel deprived of alternative avenues to express their rage at being deprived of a dignified means of living.

This all suggests we need a deep rethinking of how we prioritize and respond to security threats. The greatest threat to national and global security is climate destabilization. That threatens our long-term survival as a species; in the short term, it threatens livelihoods, which exacerbates desperation and violence. Investing in a massive effort to quickly get off fossil fuels and onto renewable energy needs to be our first security priority. We must also recognize that poverty and joblessness fuel the conflicts we hope to resolve.

If we want a healthy Earth, justice, peace, and democracy, we need a 21st-century security agenda that addresses the causes of contemporary conflicts, encourages cooperation and diplomacy, and supports every person in their quest for a healthy and dignified life.

We must press at home and abroad for political and economic reorganization that advances democracy and enables all people to pursue a decent means of living in harmony with the living Earth. Scaling back dependence on fossil fuels, the power of global corporations, the international arms trade, and the grotesque inequalities within and between nations need to be high on our list of security priorities. This will lead to dismantling the costly obsolete war machinery of the 20th century.

The leadership in formulating and advancing a 21st-century security agenda will not come from 20th-century institutions forged by global military conflicts and global competition for a dwindling resource base. It must come from the bottom up, from the people who are living a 21st-century vision into being.

Published on Sharing.org; Original source: Yes Magazine

Photo credit: Newtown grafitti, Flickr creative commons

The post Want National Security? Dismantle the War Machine appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Francine Mestrum: This article will not bring the much needed clarity, but it will very pragmatically question some of the many implicit assumptions in the debate. When I read something like ‘building an information-commons ecosystem … for the growing P2P/commons movement’ I wonder what the link is between information, commons and ecosystem and why that link is there? Does P2P production automatically imply commons? Are we really witnessing a shift ‘towards post-capitalist practices’? Is value now more than ever ‘co-created in the civic and social sphere’? If we need ‘ethical entrepreneurial coalitions’ how do they come about and are we then not already, per definition, outside capitalism? If we are to get rid of ‘commodified labour’, what are people going to live from? Is there not a contradiction between re-creating communities and generating community value while also counting on a basic income that makes people directly dependent on the state?

In much of the literature I have gone through, many assumptions are not explicited, many links are not explained and many developments are automatically considered positive.

My questions are therefore linked to a double concern. First, I think it can help the movement to clarify its theoretical principles, because it will make the literature more accessible and will contribute to the much needed convergence and the making of coalitions. Secondly, I think it can also help us to clearly define our rules and conditions in order to avoid the appropriation of our concepts by political and economic forces that do not share our desire to shape our future world in a progressive, democratic and emancipatory way.

My questions are mainly inspired by my own research on social justice, a topic that is rarely addressed in the commons literature, again, as if it were a spontaneous and unavoidable consequence of a commons approach, which it is certainly not. I do think however that our social and economic rights can be considered as a topic for commoning.

So these are my questions.

Why only talk about ‘community’?

Many of the initiatives developed in the context of ‘social innovation’ – kindergartens, help for the elderly of for disabled people – take place at the local level, obviously. Repair shops, fablabs, urban agriculture as well. While these initiatives can indeed be very positive, one wonders what their link is – or should be – with the larger society? Especially in the area of social policy, the desire to self-organize and self-manage care can certainly have negative consequences. Not all people have the necessary networks or families to receive the much needed help, the risk of exclusion of some people is real. Moreover, we all do have social rights and the state has a duty to respect and fulfil these rights. An institutional approach, if democratically organized, can give much better care than the non-professional help of neighbours. These rights are also universal, so no one can ever be excluded and the care given from one village or city to another should be comparable.

Similar questions can be put about urban agriculture. We are not all endowed for agricultural activities. Not only is it questionable that the locally produced vegetables have any added-value compared with the vegetables from other cities or countries, food sovereignty at the local level is at any rate impossible. Many countries have no coffee, tea, rice or bananas.

Also, is there any added value in locally produced kitchen-ware? What about the leather or the paper products we use? The books we read? The cars we will continue to use? Yes, we can produce local beer, but what if we prefer the taste of the globally produced brands?

The point is that the limitation to local communities also define the boundaries of what we can do. We cannot become self-sufficient at the local level and will continue to be dependent on others, and most probably to a capitalist system.

Another often forgotten element is that local communities certainly are not necessarily peaceful or non-hierarchical. History and feminism teach us that the constraints of local communities can be suffocating, and I for one, having grown up in a ‘community’, do certainly not want to go back to it. Small and local communities can exist in larger cities, certainly, but if a commons approach needs clear boundaries the problem remains.

The shift from communities to societies has accompanied a division of labour, and I do not see why we should reject this. Many authors seem to dislike the idea and seem to promote a local community, ‘outside market and capitalism’ which then means a barter system, or exchange systems with local money? It sometimes sounds like a self-provisioning polpotisation of our societies. The reference other authors make to ‘transnational tribes’, especially for the design and knowledge production and exchange do not reassure me.

If the commons approach cannot get beyond this ‘community’ level, I am afraid it will not have a bright future, since most people will never be convinced this is the best level to organize and live, however interesting many of the new initiatives are. Even productive commons cannot remain small-scale if we also want to weaken or eliminate the Monsanto’s of this world.

A new economy born within the old?

This question is linked to the previous one. Most of us probably dream of a world without capitalism, the question is, how to get there? Today, we are not progressing towards post-capitalism, in spite of what some authors try to tell us, the system is more powerful than ever, even if the financial system remains vulnerable.

Broadly speaking, there are two ways we can try to abandon capitalism:

The first method is the one that seems to adopt the commons movement: organizing an economy without commodities and without markets, at least that is what I read in several books and articles. It is a group withdrawal from the system. One may wonder whether that is possible and even desirable?

The second method is to try and change power relations within society and work at progressive reforms in order to hollow out the capitalist system and arrive at something different. This does not mean abandoning markets, commodities and money, but to withdraw some goods and services from the commodity market, as well as democratizing societies so as to give more power to people.

The arguments in favour of the first method are weak, since there are no successful and sustained examples to find in history. The self-managed factories that existed as well as the collective domestic work initiatives have all been abandoned after some time, for several reasons, whether it be international competition or the desire of women to limit work within their own families. This is what makes me reluctant to bet on the future of the many wonderful activities in Greece at this moment. In the Latin America of ‘structural adjustment’ in the 1980s, the same happened, but only for the short time of the real crisis.

Also, the commons-produced ‘things’, whether it be knowledge or material products, will still have to find ‘customers’ to use them. Only in the local community? Transnationally? How to value and price them? How to compete with the existing capitalist corporations?

What about private property? Can it exist in a world ruled by commoners? Can public property be an alternative, knowing the sad experiences of the socialist past? Is it enough to limit and democratize the rights linked to private property? Or should we think of a totally different ownership regime?

Many advocates of a commons approach definitely want to make an end to commodified labour, which is understandable. But does it mean an end to wage labour? To what extent the fordist model implied already a way to decommodification of labour? How to guarantee respect of labour rights and avoid exploitation and self-exploitation?

What kind of state do we want?

In some articles and books on commons it seems as if we did not need a state anymore. I would like to ask these authors to explain how our world of seven billion people is going to function without public authorities. I think it cannot.

But yes, we need another kind of state, one that can be considered a public service for all the people. Today, too many governments are at the service of corporations and economic interests and this certainly has to change.

But it is beyond any doubt that we do need a state, not only for internal and external conflict resolution, for defining the framework within which commons can function but also for taxes and redistribution, for public health and public transport, for guaranteeing our universal human rights and for promoting freedom and equality.

I honestly cannot see what the world would look like without states, whatever questions and criticism one may have concerning their current status and practice. I do like the concept of ‘partner state’, one that works alongside with citizens, one that can subsidize valuable initiatives of citizens and their organisations.

States are very much needed for organizing a decent social protection, even if citizens will have to be closely involved in the design and practice of the system. This is also a strong demand of all social justice movements I know in the South. They want public authorities to set the general rules and provide the funding.

Building commons-based ecosystems?

We probably all want this, since the care for nature is as important as the care for people. Moreover, this becomes very urgent because of the threatening climate change. But how can it happen? Many authors seem to think it will be a spontaneous development, and all commons initiatives naturally are eco-friendly? But why would they be? What about P2P networks ignoring extractivism? What about networks of people travelling all over the world?

Do we all agree with the statement that ‘the methodology of nature itself favours the commons as a stable self-sustaining paradigm’? Is society built in the same way and with the same characteristics as nature? This certainly needs a serious debate.

Local food chains will probably be more eco-friendly than imported food from Africa and sharing tools in a local community can be more economic than buying everything separately, but does it mean that all commons are necessarily rooted in sustainable ecosystems? I have doubts.

What about rightwing commons?

All previous questions boil down to this difficult one: why do most of us assume all commons will be progressive and emancipatory? Apart from the obvious risk of appropriation of some very good initiatives by the capitalist system, there is the very direct risk of conservative people and communities taking action and adopting a commons approach. Just imagine the kindergartens for white children, or the faith-based school programmes that limit children’s learning capacities? What about commons in the extractivist sector, think of mining cooperatives? What is the difference between the commons-based – libertarian – communities and the chartered cities emerging in the South?

Once again, I have the impression that many of these questions have not been seriously reflected on. Certainly, the self-determination, self-management and autonomy of people are very valuable objectives, but there is no reason to think that they necessarily lead to eco-friendly or emancipatory practices.

Concluding remarks

Some of the questions and problems I have mentioned are directly linked to the explicit or hidden philosophy of the authors promoting a commons approach, others are probably just naïve and based on wishful thinking.

Much is linked to an overall rejection of modernity giving rise to post-modernity, post-development and post-colonialism. It would take us too far to analyse its causes and consequences here. It seems clear to me that indeed we have to abandon a belief in endless growth and progress and that we have to be aware of the interdependence of humankind and nature. But does it also mean we have to abandon universal claims of equality and human rights? Modernity clearly has to be re-visited, though I would hesitate to fully reject it. Kant’s sapere aude can remain a valuable guideline for trying to understand the world we are living in.

A second characteristic I notice in many writings on commons is a holistic approach that assumes there can be harmony in nature and in societies. Sometimes it seems as if it were enough to look into our inner selves to make a better world. This, I believe, we have to reject. We will never avoid conflicts but have to look for ways and rules to peacefully live together. Also, we cannot forget the major oppositions in all our societies, whatever the words to name them: class, gender, race, rich and poor, diversity, culture, humankind and nature. Many authors focus on soft values such as empathy and affectivity, even spirituality, though we should never forget that equality does not come spontaneously and that structural, obligatory solidarity may be needed to promote justice.

I fully agree with the authors who claim that the commons can not only be a very emancipatory practice, it also can become an enabling discourse to fight neoliberal capitalism. However, the power relations of the current economic system will not disappear if we do not build power ourselves, if we continue to allow capitalism to appropriate our ideas and initiatives.

To me, the commons are extremely interesting in order to democratize societies and economies, to give power to the people not just to take care of themselves, but to take care of societies and economies, to take care of politics. Care can be in the centre of such an approach, but always in a political sense, with the awareness of the conflicts we are faced with. Commons are indeed about the creation of shared value, not only thanks to individual contributions but also thanks to a common, collective contribution in past and present.

I am aware of the fact that all these questions need to be debated. Maybe I overlooked some of the problems, maybe I am focusing too much on others.  If we want to make progress and look for convergence, I think it can help to organize such a debate, not to ignore our inevitable differences but to know what we want and how we can get there together. The current world, I am afraid, is not and will never be as soft as some would like it to be. But ‘commons’ can become a very strong discourse and practice to re-order today’s progressive political forces.

The post Questions for the Commons Movement appeared first on P2P Foundation.