To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable earth. These resources are held in common, not owned privately. Commons can also be understood as natural resources that groups of people (communities, user groups) manage for individual and collective benefit. Characteristically, this involves a variety of informal norms and values (social practice) employed for a governance mechanism.[1] Commons can be also defined as a social practice of governing a resource not by state or market but by a community of users that self-governs the resource through institutions that it creates .[2]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    249 622
    316
    10 446
    87 914
    224 909
  • Tragedy of the Commons │ The Problem with Open Access
  • Adventures in New Economics - Wealth of the Commons, David Bollier
  • 🐄 The Tragedy of the Commons | How to Avoid It?
  • Sustainable development and the tragedy of commons
  • Media Institution: Crash Course Government and Politics #44

Transcription

This is a model called the tragedy of the commons. Which should be called the problem with open access, since it has little to do with a commons. And tragedy is a kind of dramatic. Let's say there's some land with grass on it that people use as pasture for their animals. Nobody owns it and anyone can come and graze their livestock here. We're assuming that people don't communicate or work together. So we would call this an open access field. Let's assume the number of animals this field can feed is based on the quantity and quality of the grass, which is based on the health of the soil and it can only hold this many animals. This is the carrying capacity. If animals are added beyond this, the grass can't re-grow fast enough to support them all. Also the grass protects the soil from erosion. If too many animals are around eating the field may decline in productivity lowering the carrying capacity. The animals will be less healthy and provide lesser quality products lowering the profit each animal provides. So it's in this group's best interest to keep the number of animals on the field at or below the carrying capacity. But every herdsman that puts animals on the field will get the direct benefit that that animal provides for them. But they would only share a portion of the costs of the degraded field. If the field were at carrying capacity and a herdsmen decides to add an extra animal. The added animals takes some of the food that would have gone to the others. This reduces their value. The owner of that additional animal comes out ahead because even though all his animals also are less healthy, he has more of them. But each herdsmen acts under these incentives and will keep adding animals to their herd or let their animals graze longer, so long as it's profitable to themselves. But really they are all losing out. Kind of like the prisoner's dilemma. Contrast this to a situation where one person owns it. If they add extra animal, they're only hurting themselves so they don't do it. Since new people can't be excluded from using the field, there's almost no point in boycotting use because someone else could just come in. None of the herdsmen own the field and they can see the field may not be around forever. They see no point in conservation and just try to use it before someone else does. OK so we go on to can apply this model to unregulated open access fisheries, open access forests, an unregulated college dorm dish sink. But the problem with applying this model to the real world, is that we have to assume, among other things, that people don't communicate or work together. Which isn't true.... With a field like this, people will generally get together and make plans together and make plans about its use. They may act as a single unit, or just partition it sections, and they'll regulate the number of people that can use it. And if people are working together and communicating then it's not really open access. It's not like every management situation is open access until somebody does something about it. So you don't tend to see the open access problem because people don't work together. You tend to see it in situations where people can't work together. The open access problem tends to appear not where people don't communicate or don't work together, but where they can't communicate or can't work together. Sometimes people are forced into a situation where they're not allowed to work together. Check out this video. Also the larger the management area is the more difficult communication and influencing each other becomes. For example the global management of greenhouse gas emissions tends to take on some open access properties. Basically this model is a way of communicating that: when people can't work together on a resource you call it open access... and it's bad. Which is why the model should have been called, the problem with open access. This episode is brought to you by, Hardin's canned animal meat. Now orphan free.

Contents

Definition and modern use

The Digital Library of the Commons defines "commons" as "a general term for shared resources in which each stakeholder has an equal interest".[3]

The term "commons" derives from the traditional English legal term for common land, which are also known as "commons", and was popularised in the modern sense as a shared resource term by the ecologist Garrett Hardin in an influential 1968 article called The Tragedy of the Commons. As Frank van Laerhoven and Elinor Ostrom have stated; "Prior to the publication of Hardin's article on the tragedy of the commons (1968), titles containing the words 'the commons', 'common pool resources', or 'common property' were very rare in the academic literature."[4]

Some texts make a distinction in usage between common ownership of the commons and collective ownership among a group of colleagues, such as in a producers' cooperative. The precision of this distinction is not always maintained.

The use of "commons" for natural resources has its roots in European intellectual history, where it referred to shared agricultural fields, grazing lands and forests that were, over a period of several hundred years, enclosed, claimed as private property for private use. In European political texts, the common wealth was the totality of the material riches of the world, such as the air, the water, the soil and the seed, all nature's bounty regarded as the inheritance of humanity as a whole, to be shared together. In this context, one may go back further, to the Roman legal category res communis, applied to things common to all to be used and enjoyed by everyone, as opposed to res publica, applied to public property managed by the government.[5]

Types of commons

Environmental resource

The examples below illustrate types of environmental commons.

European land use

Originally in medieval England the common was an integral part of the manor, and was thus legally part of the estate in land owned by the lord of the manor, but over which certain classes of manorial tenants and others held certain rights. By extension, the term "commons" has come to be applied to other resources which a community has rights or access to. The older texts use the word "common" to denote any such right, but more modern usage is to refer to particular rights of common, and to reserve the name "common" for the land over which the rights are exercised. A person who has a right in, or over, common land jointly with another or others is called a commoner.[6]

In middle Europe, commons (relatively small-scale agriculture in, especially, southern Germany, Austria, and the alpine countries) were kept, in some parts, till the present.[7] Some studies have compared the German and English dealings with the commons between late medieval times and the agrarian reforms of the 18th and 19th centuries. The UK was quite radical in doing away with and enclosing former commons, while southwestern Germany (and the alpine countries as e.g. Switzerland) had the most advanced commons structures, and were more inclined to keep them. The Lower Rhine region took an intermediate position.[8] However, the UK and the former dominions have till today a large amount of Crown land which often is used for community or conservation purposes.

Mongolian grasslands

Based on a research project by the Environmental and Cultural Conservation in Inner Asia (ECCIA) from 1992 to 1995, satellite images were used to compare the amount of land degradation due to livestock grazing in the regions of Mongolia, Russia, and China.[9] In Mongolia, where shepherds were permitted to move collectively between seasonal grazing pastures, degradation remained relatively low at approximately 9%. Comparatively, Russia and China, which mandated state-owned pastures involving immobile settlements and in some cases privatization by household, had much higher degradation, at around 75% and 33% respectively.[10] A collaborative effort on the part of Mongolians proved much more efficient in preserving grazing land.

Lobster fishery of Maine

Widespread success of the Maine lobster industry is often attributed to the willingness of Maine's lobstermen to uphold and support lobster conservation rules. These rules include harbor territories not recognized by the state, informal trap limits, and laws imposed by the state of Maine (which are largely influenced by lobbying from lobster industry itself).[11] Essentially, the lobstermen collaborate without much government intervention to sustain their common-pool resource.

Community forests in Nepal

In the late 1980s, Nepal chose to decentralize government control over forests. Community forest programs work by giving local areas a financial stake in nearby woodlands, and thereby increasing the incentive to protect them from overuse. Local institutions regulate harvesting and selling of timber and land, and must use any profit towards community development and preservation of the forests. In twenty years, locals have noticed a visible increase in the number of trees. Community forestry may also contribute to community development in rural areas – for instance school construction, irrigation and drinking water channel construction, and road construction. Community forestry has proven conducive to democratic practices at grass roots level.[12]

Irrigation systems of New Mexico

Acequia is a method of collective responsibility and management for irrigation systems in desert areas. In New Mexico, a community-run organization known as Acequia Associations supervises water in terms of diversion, distribution, utilization, and recycling, in order to reinforce agricultural traditions and preserve water as a common resource for future generations.[13]

Cultural and intellectual commons

Today, the commons are also understood within a cultural sphere. These commons include literature, music, arts, design, film, video, television, radio, information, software and sites of heritage. Wikipedia is an example of the production and maintenance of common goods by a contributor community in the form of encyclopedic knowledge that can be freely accessed by anyone without a central authority.[14]

Tragedy of the commons in the Wiki-Commons is avoided by community control by individual authors within the Wikipedia community.[15]

The information commons may help protect users of commons. Companies that pollute the environment release information about what they are doing. The Corporate Toxics Information Project[16] and information like the Toxic 100, a list of the top 100 polluters,[17] helps people know what these corporations are doing to the environment.

Digital commons

Mayo Fuster Morell proposed a definition of digital commons as "information and knowledge resources that are collectively created and owned or shared between or among a community and that tend to be non-exclusive, that is, be (generally freely) available to third parties. Thus, they are oriented to favor use and reuse, rather than to exchange as a commodity. Additionally, the community of people building them can intervene in the governing of their interaction processes and of their shared resources."[18][19]

Examples of digital commons are Wikipedia, free software and open-source hardware projects.

Urban commons

Urban commons present the opportunity for the citizens to gain power upon the management of the urban resources and reframe city-life costs based on their use value and maintenance costs, rather than the market-driven value.[20]

Syntagma Square in Athens as urban commons
Syntagma Square in Athens as urban commons
Tahrir Square in Cairo as urban commons
Tahrir Square in Cairo as urban commons

Urban commons situates citizens as key players rather than public authorities, private markets and technologies.[21] David Harvey (2012) defines the distinction between public spaces and urban commons. Public spaces and goods in the city make a commons when part of the citizens take political action. Syntagma Square in Athens, Tahrir Square in Cairo, and the Plaza de Catalunya in Barcelona were public spaces that transformed to an urban commons as people protested there to support their political statements. Streets are public spaces that have often become an urban commons by social action and revolutionary protests.[22]. Urban commons are operating in the cities in a complementary way with the state and the market. Some examples are community gardening, urban farms on the rooftops and cultural spaces[23]. More recently participatory studies of commons and infrastructures under the conditions of the financial crisis emerge [24] [25].

Knowledge commons

In 2007, Elinor Ostrom along with her colleague Charlotte Hess, did succeed in extending the commons debate to knowledge, approaching knowledge as a complex ecosystem that operates as a common – a shared resource that is subject to social dilemmas. The focus here was on the ready availability of digital forms of knowledge and associated possibilities to store, access and share it as a common. The connection between knowledge and commons may be made through identifying typical problems associated with natural resource commons, such as congestion, overharvesting, pollution and inequities, which also apply to knowledge. Then, effective alternatives (community-based, non-private, non-state), in line with those of natural commons (involving social rules, appropriate property rights and management structures), solutions are proposed. Thus, the commons metaphor is applied to social practice around knowledge. It is in this context that the present work proceeds, discussing the creation of depositories of knowledge through the organised, voluntary contributions of scholars (the research community, itself a social common), the problems that such knowledge commons might face (such as free-riding or disappearing assets), and the protection of knowledge commons from enclosure and commodification (in the form of intellectual property legislation, patenting, licensing and overpricing).[26] At this point, it is important to note the nature of knowledge and its complex and multi-layered qualities of non-rivalry and non-excludability. Unlike natural commons – which are both rival and excludable (only one person can use any one item or portion at a time and in so doing they use it up, it is consumed) and characterised by scarcity (they can be replenished but there are limits to this, such that consumption/destruction may overtake production/creation) – knowledge commons are characterised by abundance (they are non-rival and non-excludable and thus, in principle, not scarce, so not impelling competition and compelling governance). This abundance of knowledge commons has been celebrated through alternative models of knowledge production, such as Commons Based Peer Production (CBPP), and embodied in the free software movement. The CBPP model showed the power of networked, open collaboration and non-material incentives to produce better quality products (mainly software).[27]

Economic theories

Tragedy of the commons

A commons failure theory, now called tragedy of the commons, originated in the 18th century.[7] In 1833 William Forster Lloyd introduced the concept by a hypothetical example of herders overusing a shared parcel of land on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze, to the detriment of all users of the common land.[28] The same concept has been called the "tragedy of the fishers", when over-fishing could cause stocks to plummet.[29]

It has been said the dissolution of the traditional land commons played a watershed role in landscape development and cooperative land use patterns and property rights.[30] However, as in the British Isles, such changes took place over several centuries as a result of land enclosure.

Economist Peter Barnes has proposed a 'sky trust' to fix this tragedic problem in worldwide generic commons. He claims that the sky belongs to all the people, and companies do not have a right to over pollute. It is a type of cap and dividend program. Ultimately the goal would be to make polluting excessively more expensive than cleaning what is being put into the atmosphere.[31]

Successful commons

While the original work on the tragedy of the commons concept suggested that all commons were doomed to failure, they remain important in the modern world. Work by later economists has found many examples of successful commons, and Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel prize for analysing situations where they operate successfully.[32][33] For example, Ostrom found that grazing commons in the Swiss Alps have been run successfully for many hundreds of years by the farmers there.[34]

Allied to this is the "comedy of the commons" concept, where users of the commons are able to develop mechanisms to police their use to maintain, and possibly improve, the state of the commons.[35] This term was coined in an essay by legal scholar, Carol M. Rose, in 1986.[35][32][36]

Other related concepts are the inverse commons, cornucopia of the commons[37], and triumph of the commons.[38][39] It is argued that some types of commons, such as open-source software, work better in the cornucopia of the commons; proponents say that, in those cases, "the grass grows taller when it is grazed on".[40]

Notable theorists

Historical land commons movements

Contemporary commons movements

See also

References

  1. ^ Basu, Soutrik; Jongerden, Joost; Ruivenkamp, Guido (17 March 2017). "Development of the drought tolerant variety Sahbhagi Dhan: exploring the concepts commons and community building". International Journal of the Commons. 11 (1): 144. doi:10.18352/ijc.673. Retrieved 6 September 2017.
  2. ^ Classical theory based on Elinor Ostrom's book Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  3. ^ Digital library of the commons – Indiana University, retrieved 02/01/16 [1]
  4. ^ Frank van Laerhoven and Elinor Ostrom. "Traditions and Trends in the Study of the Commons". International Journal of the Commons, Vol. 1, no. 1, October 2007, pp. 3–28
  5. ^ Basu, Soutrik; Jongerden, Joost; Ruivenkamp, Guido (March 17, 2017). "Development of the drought tolerant variety Sahbhagi Dhan: exploring the concepts commons and community building". International Journal of the Commons.
  6. ^ Anon. "Commoner". Farlex Inc. Retrieved 20 April 2012.
  7. ^ a b Radkau 2008, p. 90, ff in the German text
  8. ^ Hartmut Zückert, "Allmende und Allmendaufhebung". Vergleichende Studien zum Spätmittelalter bis zu den Agrarreformen des 18./19. Jahrhunderts (= Quellen und Forschungen zur Agrargeschichte; Bd. 47), Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius 2003, IX + 462 S., 4 Farb-Abb., ISBN 978-3-8282-0226-9 review (in German)
  9. ^ Sneath, David. "State Policy and Pasture Degradation in Inner Asia". Science Magazine. Retrieved 11 May 2011.
  10. ^ Ostrom, Elinor. "Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges". Science Magazine. Retrieved 11 May 2011.
  11. ^ Acheson, James (2004). Capturing the Commons: Devising Institutions to Manage the Maine Lobster. University Press of New England. ISBN 9781584653936.
  12. ^ Mehta, Trupti Parekh. "Community Forestry in India and Nepal". PERC Reports. Missing or empty |url= (help)
  13. ^ Davidson-Harden, Adam. "Local Control and Management of Our Water Commons: Stories of Rising to the Challenge" (PDF). www.ourwatercommons.org. Retrieved 11 May 2011.
  14. ^ Huberman, Bernardo A. and Romero, Daniel M. and Wu, Fang, Crowdsourcing, Attention and Productivity (September 12, 2008). doi:10.2139/ssrn.1266996
  15. ^ "Avoiding Tragedy in the Wiki-Commons", by Andrew George, 12 Va. J.L. & Tech. 8 (2007)
  16. ^ "Corporate Toxics Information Project". Political Economy Research Institute. PERI-Umass. Archived from the original on 2011-07-25.
  17. ^ Ash, Michael. "Justice in the Air" (PDF). PERI. PERI- Umass.
  18. ^ Fuster Morell, M. (2010, p. 5). Dissertation: Governance of online creation communities: Provision of infrastructure for the building of digital commons. http://www.onlinecreation.info/?page_id=338
  19. ^ Berry, David (21 February 2005). "The commons". Free Software Magazine.
  20. ^ Dellenbaugh-Losse, M. (2017). "What makes urban commons different from other commons?" Urban Policy. Retrieved December 28, 2017
  21. ^ Sharing Cities: activating the Urban Commons. (2017). Mountain View: Shareable. Retrieved December 28, 2017
  22. ^ Harvey, D. (2013). "Rebel cities: from the right to the city to the urban revolution". London: Verso
  23. ^ C. Iaione. "The city as a commons" (personal communication, November 9, 2016) [Blog post]
  24. ^ Dalakoglou, D. (2016). "Infrastructural Gap: Commons, State and Anthropology". City vol. 6 (2)
  25. ^ See also infra-demos
  26. ^ Basu, Soutrik; Jongerden, Joost; Ruivenkamp, Guido (17 March 2017). "Development of the drought tolerant variety Sahbhagi Dhan: exploring the concepts commons and community building". International Journal of the Commons. 11 (1): 144. doi:10.18352/ijc.673. Retrieved 6 September 2017.
  27. ^ Basu, Soutrik; Jongerden, Joost; Ruivenkamp, Guido. "The emergence of a hybrid mode of knowledge production in the Generation Challenge Programme Rice Research Network (GCP-RRN) in India: Exploring the concept of Commons-Based Peer Production (CBPP)". Geoforum. 84: 107. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.06.008.
  28. ^ Lloyd, William Forster (1833). Two Lectures on Population. JSTOR 1972412.
  29. ^ Samuel Bowles: Microeconomics: Behavior, Institutions, and Evolution, Princeton University Press, pp. 27–29 (2004) ISBN 0-691-09163-3
  30. ^ The end of the commons as a watershed' The Age of Ecology, Joachim Radkau, John Wiley & Sons, 3 April 2014, p. 15 ff
  31. ^ Barnes, Peter (2000). Pie in the Sky. Washington D.C: Corporation for Enterprise Development. p. 1. ISBN 1-883187-32-X.
  32. ^ a b Rifkin, Jeremy. "10 – Comedy of the Commons". The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative. Retrieved 2 February 2016.
  33. ^ Elinor Ostrom (2015). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. ISBN 9781107569782.
  34. ^ NPR: Remembering Elinor Ostrom, Nobel Laureate Updated June 13, 201211:08 AM ET Published June 12, 20125:37 PM ET
  35. ^ a b Rose, Carol M. (1986). "The Comedy of the Commons: Commerce, Custom, and Inherently Public Property". Faculty Scholarship Series. Yale Law School: Paper 1828. Retrieved December 28, 2011.
  36. ^ The Drama of the Commons By Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Environmental Change and Society
  37. ^ "The Cornucopia of the Commons: How to get volunteer labor". www.bricklin.com. Retrieved 2018-02-03.
  38. ^ Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth By David Bollier
  39. ^ Cox, Susan Jane Buck (1985). "No Tragedy of the Commons" (PDF). Environmental Ethics. 7 (1): 49–61. doi:10.5840/enviroethics1985716.
  40. ^ The Cathedral & the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an … By Eric Raymond

Further reading

  • Basu, S., Jongerden, J. & Ruivenkamp, G., (2017). Development of the drought tolerant variety Sahbhagi Dhan: exploring the concepts commons and community building. International Journal of the Commons. 11(1), pp.144–170. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.673
  • Basu, S (2016). Knowledge production, Agriculture and Commons: The case of Generation Challenge Programme. (PhD Thesis). Netherlands: Wageningen University. Retrieved from http://edepot.wur.nl/377889.
  • Basu, S (2014). An alternative imagination to study commons: beyond state and beyond scientific establishment. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Commons for Sustainable Agricultural Innovations. Maringá, Brazil: Maringá State University.
  • Bollier, David. "The Commons". Public Sphere Project. Schuler. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  • Bowers, Chet. (2006). Revitalizing the Commons: Cultural and Educational Sites of Resistance and Affirmation. Lexington Books.
  • Bowers, Chet. (2012). The Way Forward: Educational Reforms that Focus on the Cultural Commons and the Linguistic Roots of the Ecological Crisis. Eco-Justice Press.
  • Dalakoglou, Dimitris "Infrastructural gap: Commons, State and Anthropology". City 20(6).
  • Dellenbaugh, et. al. (2015). Urban Commons: Moving beyond State and Market. Birkhäuser.
  • Fourier, Charles. (1996). The Theory of the Four Movements (Cambridge University Press)
  • Gregg, Pauline. (2001). Free-Born John: A Biography of John Lilburne (Phoenix Press)
  • Harvey, Neil. (1998). The Chiapas Rebellion: The Struggle for Land and Democracy (Duke University Press)
  • Hill, Christopher. (1984). The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution (Penguin)
  • Hill, Christopher. (2006). Winstanley ‘The Law of Freedom’ and other Writings (Cambridge University Press)
  • Hyde, Lewis. (2010). Common as Air: Revolution, Art and Ownership (Farrar, Straus and Giroux)
  • Kennedy, Kennedy. (2008). Diggers, Levellers, and Agrarian Capitalism: Radical Political Thought in 17th Century England (Lexington Books)
  • Kostakis, Vasilis and Bauwens, Michel. (2014). Network Society and Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy. (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan). (wiki)
  • Leaming, Hugo P. (1995). Hidden Americans: Maroons of Virginia and the Carolinas (Routledge)
  • Linebaugh, Peter, and Marcus Rediker. (2000). The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic (Boston: Beacon Press)
  • Linebaugh, Peter. (2008). The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All (University of California Press)
  • Lummis, Douglas. (1997). Radical Democracy (Cornell University Press)
  • Fabien Locher, « Les pâturages de la guerre froide. Garrett Hardin et la Tragédie des communs », Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine, vol. 2013, no 1, 2013, p. 7-36. (abstract, read online [PDF])
  • Fabien Locher, « Third World Pastures. The Historical Roots of the Commons Paradigm (1965-1990) », Quaderni Storici, vol. 2013, no 1, 2013, p. 7-36. (read online [PDF]) (historical work based on Elinor Ostrom personal archives).
  • Mitchel, John Hanson. (1998). Trespassing: An Inquiry into the Private Ownership of Land (Perseus Books)
  • Neeson, J. M. (1996). Commoners: Common Right, Enclosure and Social Change in England, 1700–1820 (Cambridge University Press)
  • Negri, Antonio, and Michael Hardt. (2009). Commonwealth. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674060288
  • Newfont, Kathyn. (2012). Blue Ridge Commons: Environmental Activism and Forest History in Western North Carolina (The University of Georgia Press)
  • Patel, Raj. (2010). The Value of Nothing (Portobello Books)
  • Price, Richard, ed. (1979). Maroon Societies: Rebel Slave Communities in the Americas (The Johns Hopkins University Press)
  • Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. (1994). What is Property? (Cambridge University Press)
  • Rexroth, Kenneth. (1974). Communalism: From Its Origins to the Twentieth Century (Seabury Press)
  • Rowe, Jonathan. (2013). Our Common Wealth: The Hidden Economy That Makes Everything Else Work (Berrett-Koehler)
  • Shantz, Jeff. (2013). Commonist Tendencies: Mutual Aid Beyond Communism. (Punctum)
  • Simon, Martin. (2014). Your Money or Your Life: time for both. Social Commons. (Freedom Favours)

External links

This page was last edited on 6 December 2018, at 17:45
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.