[P2P-F] thinking true meta-governance and the gaps in p2p theory regarding the household economy

Fri Oct 13 07:34:26 CEST 2017

this is exactly the point of adding this, as the sphere of reproduction etc
...

but, yes, from the point of view of the political economy for now

so the question is for me, what can the commons sector, reconfigured as we
propose, do for and with the sphere of the household and reproduction (and
vice versa, it's inter-dependence with it)

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 at 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 at 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/
> >
> >
>

-- 
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20171013/0538d7e7/attachment.html>