The book indicates the imbrication of governments and corporations determining how markets 'really' function, and since markets are always embedded in societies and their institutions, self-regulating markets seem to me a contradiction, which changes the subject to 'what kind of regulation' and obviously, a state captured by private interests is not a good solution. Self-regulating market ideology means in practice, today, 'let greedy corporations regulate themselves amongst each other, without interference from other stakeholders and no consideration for the common good'.<br>
<br>The direction to seek solace, is to take both a commons point of view, i.e. seeing markets embedded in the natural, human, and productive commons, and to take the point of view of multiple stakeholders. We need to find mechanisms so that various stakeholders, i.e. all those that are affected by a particular market, can set parameters within which the market can operate. Within these parameters, maximum freedom could still be given to the enterpreneurial entities operating in particular market.<br>
<br>But these are still 'external' constraint. How do we make constraints 'internal'; my answer is increasingly, by reforming the 'format' of the corporation to mission-oriented enterprises, who by their very social charters are ethically and legally obligated to serve a certain commons or social good.<br>
<br>To answer the tragegy of the commons itself. I indeed believe that commonses themselves are partially selfish, since they care about their own commons, not the global good; this means that there is still need for collective society and its institutions, which can similarly set parameters ... but in my view, that 'society', those institutions, are themselves constituted of the variety of commons and their commoners/citizens, not by a 'captured state'.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Franco Iacomella <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:franco@freeknowledge.eu">franco@freeknowledge.eu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
El 20/06/11 04:18, Michel Bauwens escribió:<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
basic thesis: self-regulation is always done for the benefit of the few ...<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Interesting book Michel, thanks for sharing.<br>
<br>
About the thesis: if all self-regulated markets benefit a few, then the thesis excludes the possibility of organizing self-organized commons-based markets?<br>
<br>
Following commons theories, collective action institutions are valid instruments to govern commons (as markets), so if self-regulation and autonomy leads to "injustice", self-regulated commons fall in a new tragedy? what do you think?<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br><font color="#888888">
Franco Iacomella<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br><br><br><br><br>