Natural Anti-Capitalism

This shift of perspective has particularly important implications for economic science. The double metaphor of eco-nomy/logy, if applied in a proper, non-reductionist way, provides a perspective for seeing all living household processes, ecological or human, from the same angle. Unlike previous attempts to naturalize economics with biological justifications—the essence of social Darwinism and (neo-) liberalism—enlivenment looks to biological systems to understand the default patterns of (self-) organized flows of matter and information.

If economic theory was unburdened from its Darwinistic-optimization content and if the notion of market were to give way to the idea of household of and with the biosphere, we could more clearly see how economic processes that enhance life could be designed. We could even see that a certain form of householding, which is undergoing a huge renaissance at the moment, is clearly favoured by nature: the economy of the commons. From the standpoint of enlivenment, nature is a commons economy consisting of subjects that are continuously mediating relationships among each other— relationships that have a material side, but also always embody meaning, a sense of living and the notion of belonging to a place.

Nature, understood as a creative process of interacting, embodied subjects, can serve as a model for an economic concept of the commons. Basic structures and principles of natural commoning— self-organising, dynamic, creative—have been the basis of biospherical evolution. I argue that the principles of (self-) organization in nature provide a template for any commons economy. These principles include:

1. General principles and local rules

   Every patch of living earth functions by the same ecological principles— but each is a unique individual realisation of these principles.

2. Interbeing: balance of individuality and the whole

   The individual is able to realize itself only if the whole can realize itself.

3. Strict non-dualism: there are no commons without commoners.

   Living beings not only use the commons provided by nature, they are physically and relationally a part of them.

4. Material resources are linked to (immaterial) meaning and sense.

   The beauty of living things stems from the fact that they are embodied solutions of individual existence in connection.

5. Reciprocity: Loss at the individual level affects the whole and vice versa.

   If disruptions or damage force the individual, community or species to experience too much stress, then the resilience of the whole will weaken.

6. Property: No copyright—copyleft is always rewarded.

   Nature’s quintessence is not the selfish gene but the open source code of genetic information.

7. Resource trade as gift exchange

   In nature, there is no waste. All waste products literally are food for some other member of the ecological community.

A thorough analysis of the economy of ecosystems can yield powerful guidelines for new types of enlivened economy—an economy based on commons. We should look to natural processes—as expressions of the natural history of freedom—to guide our thinking about how to transform the embodied, material aspect of our existence into a culture of being alive. The term ‘commons’ provides a conceptual binding that can help us conjoin the natural and social/cultural worlds and make them more compatible (if not synergistic). To understand nature as an authentic, aboriginal commons also opens the way to a novel understanding of selves in both a biological and social sense.

If nature actually is a commons, it follows that the only possible way to achieve a stable, long-term productive relationship with it is by building an economy of the commons. It can help dissolve the traditional duality of humans and nature, and orient us toward respectful, sustainable models of engaging with the more-than-human aspects of nature. The self-realization of Homo sapiens can be best achieved in a commons, simply because such a culture—and thus any socioeconomic system—is our own species-specific realization of natural existence. It is our individual cultural interpretation of the principles of the biosphere.

From Enlivenment to Shared Livelihoods: The Emergence of a Commons-Based Economy

The enlivenment approach is not just an abstract philosophical re-imagining of the world. It is an emerging reality in countless corners of the earth. The principles of enlivenment do not apply to the living biosphere alone, but to a wide variety of social innovations that are attempting to build a new sort of economy based on a personal practice that enhances the participants’ aliveness. These phenomena can be seen in highly diverse contexts— traditional societies, indigenous cultures, Internet culture, urban spaces, land and water management, and many others. Self-organised communities of people are bypassing the NeoDarwinian/neoliberal model by inventing their own novel forms of self-provisioning and governance. The emergent new forms are blending the interests of the individual and the whole and of meaning and material production and exchange.

Unlike market economics, commoning is not only about producing and distributing resources, but about constructing meaningful relationships to a place, to the earth and to one another. This is the hidden leverage power of commoning. Economists are not likely to see or understand these invisible forces because their vector of analysis is rational game theory and the workings of egoistic machines and selfish genes. The social, moral and spiritual worlds of human existence have no real standing in standard economics. Yet these forces are precisely what bind together a commons, enabling it to function as a provisioning paradigm that is durable, effective, socially satisfying and ecologically constructive.

It turns out that really sustainable projects—sustainable in the long term—are projects that satisfy the participants in a multidimensional way. They are projects that satisfy a richer scope of human needs that lie beyond the material, utilitarian self-interests of Homo economicus. We can get a deeper understanding of this idea by looking at the ‘barefoot economics’ conceived by Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef. His goal was to insert and integrate human needs into an economic theory, much as the commons does so in non-economic terms.

The shift from a neoDarwinian/neoliberal economy to a world of biospheric householding is not a utopian dream. It is happening now. It is the subject of a burgeoning academic literature and activist initiatives and policy proposals. The common goal of so many of these efforts is to design human exchange circles that entail new, more fully human ways for people to relate to one another and to the more-than-human-world. The goal is to foster more hospitable contexts for human sense-making so that humans can become productive participants in the nourishing cycles of the biosphere, and not mere bystanders or exploiters of it (i.e., producers and consumers). Being an active participant in the biosphere does not mean to obey all its laws, but to enact freedom within the constraints of existential and ecological necessity.

For the German philosopher and poet Friedrich Schiller, the paradox of equally fulfilling our need to belong and our need to be autonomous is the culmination point of culture. In his concept of aesthetic education, Schiller expressed his conviction that a negotiation of these paradoxes was necessary to live a true and meaningful life, a life that fulfils its potential and at the same time reveals the aliveness of the larger whole, and in this sense is aesthetic or poetic.

To find a reconciliation to this paradox, Schiller decided to stick close to the practice of the living and in particular to the profound lessons learned in early childhood. For Schiller, the entanglement of individual autonomy and larger necessity could only—momentarily— be fulfilled through play. Play unfolds from a person’s free choice about how to do what is necessary, and this opens up new possibilities in the process. We are fully human only in play, Schiller believed.

We are natural only in play, one might add. The practice of an enlivened economy then amounts to nothing less than the practice of a rich and playful life. That vision, the deep attraction and satisfaction of serious play, may be the most potent, imaginative force for helping us deal with the realities of our time. Or, as psychologist Marshall Rosenberg expressed it: “Don’t do anything that isn’t play. Because it will be play if you are meeting your own needs.” Your own needs as an embodied being in relation and in need for constant transformation, as a being entangeld in a continuous material and meaningful householding hitched to everything else.

We are natural only in play, one might add. The practice of an enlivened economy then amounts to nothing less than the practice of a rich and playful life. That vision, the deep attraction and satisfaction of serious play, may be the most potent, imaginative force for helping us deal with the realities of our time. Or, as psychologist Marshall Rosenberg expressed it: “Don’t do anything that isn’t play. Because it will be play if you are meeting your own needs.” Your own needs as an embodied being in relation and in need for constant transformation, as a being entangeld in a continuous material and meaningful householding hitched to everything else.

In this sense, the wisdom offered by Transition movement founder Rob Hopkins seems entirely applicable to the poetic practice of the Enlivenment: “If it’s not fun, you’re not doing it right.”

Author’s Note: Many thanks to David Bollier of the Commons Strategy Group for clarifying my English, my thoughts, and for suggesting practical examples.