I totally agree that this is a critical conversation and economic
sector. But don't forget raising the children and caring for the
elders.

A lot of child development and elder care happens in institutions that
are often more-or-less commons, but homes are still the core.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Sharon Ede <sharonede.au@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for this Jose, an important observation:
>
>>I have really collapsed household and commons, because I on the one hand, I
>> see the family as a commons and caring as commoning, but on the other hand,
>> I have not seen any solution yet emerge, as how commons-based peer
>> production can actually help the household economy,
>
> Monbiot is riffing off of Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics concept (see
> attached image), which is of course a fusion of many others' ideas before
> her - she gave an excellent presentation on this at the Building a New
> Economy Conference in Brisbane via Skype, but I don't think it is online
> yet.
>
> I'm not quite sure what to say in terms of frameworks, governance aspects
> etc...also, words like 'household' and 'domestic' carry lots of baggage -
> but I don't know how else to talk about it...'household commons economy'?
>
> But initial things that spring to mind:
>
> One thing I'd very much enjoy seeing covered in this research is 'emotional
> labour' (cognitive load), along with physical labour undertaken in the
> household. It's not always done by women, but a lot of it is, and though
> some doubt it is even a thing (or dismiss it), it very much is, and there is
> a cost involved for those doing it (see attached pdf). It absolutely will
> emerge in any debate about household economics, and I can't stress enough
> the ire this raises among most women I've talked to about it.
>
> Other references:
>
> www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a12063822/emotional-labor-gender-equality
>
> www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/08/women-gender-roles-sexism-emotional-labor-feminism
>
> Specific 'commons' approaches related to household/care:
>
> Please check out MamaBake http://mamabake.com/about/ - it was started by an
> Australian woman called Michelle Shearer who was a Mum to young kids (and an
> avid surfer). A friend dropped around one night with an entire tray of
> lasagne, and she was so overjoyed that she could go surfing instead of
> making dinner, that she thought about how she could make this happen for
> others. So big batch baking (which could ALSO work for single professionals,
> isolated older men) was born. Self organised local groups that do big batch
> baking, after agreeing on ground rules re: dietary preferences,
> restrictions, and go home with a few meals for the week, to give them the
> night off.
>
> Over and over I hear again that daily domestic necessities like cooking
> meals are the biggest bone of contention, and its less the actual cooking
> that deciding what to cook, and making sure all the stuff is there
> (cognitive load).
>
> Then there are things like Meal Trains, when people are sick or in need of
> temporary care in their home: www.mealtrain.com
>
> My big question is:
>
>>then, they need to relate to each other, given us commons-market, commons
>> to state, commons-households, etc..
>
> How, what do we mean by 'need to relate to each other'?
>
> There is a raging debate going on about whether to put a price on nature so
> it shows up on the balance sheet, and if that is just falling into the trap
> of a logic that needs changing; I suspect that the same question will arise
> here, but if that's not the approach to take, then what is (being mindful
> about some of the unresolved questions around UBI etc).
>
> That's about all from me for now on this, but I am interested to stay in the
> loop on this one :)
>
> Cheers
> Sharon
>
>
>
>
> On 12 October 2017 at 17:08, Michel Bauwens <michel@p2pfoundation.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> the following was prompted by Jose Ramos, who was thinking about his new
>> book on commons policy,
>>
>> SO, WE NEED TO WORK ON SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN P2P THEORY, and in particular:
>>
>>
>> after hearing a recent monbiot video where he mentioned 4 economic
>> spheres, (market-state-commons-households), rather than the 3 we are using
>> at the p2p foundation (market-state-commons) ...
>>
>>
>> I have started thinking that in our (at least mine) own work, I have
>> really collapsed household and commons, because I on the one hand, I see the
>> family as a commons and caring as commoning, but on the other hand, I have
>> not seen any solution yet emerge, as how commons-based peer production can
>> actually help the household economy,
>>
>>
>> so basically, I am asking for help and ideas on how we could think this
>> through,
>>
>>
>>  here is a potential framework: I would suggest a potential scheme
>>
>> take the 4 economic sectors: commons, state, market and households
>>
>> each of these has internal governance aspects and specific characteristics
>>
>> then, they need to relate to each other, given us commons-market, commons
>> to state, commons-households, etc..
>>
>> then, all of this needs a meta-framework
>>
>>
>> so far the work at the p2p foundation has been at the intersection of 1) a
>> general framework for commons/state/market, and I believe we have done good
>> work on this 2) work on commons-state (in value in the commons economy and
>> other work) 3) state-commons: our work in ecaudor (focusing on social
>> knowledge commons) and our work in ghent, focusing on institutional design
>> for public-commons cooperation; I think we have done good work and advanced
>> significantly in these 3 directions
>>
>>
>> --
>> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at:
>> http://commonstransition.org
>>
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
>
>