George Monbiot, and exploring "the ways in which we could restore political life by restoring community life."

These things sneak up on you, and it's all part of the unceasing learning curve -- and if you really believe you learned everything you need to know in kindergarten, you're doing it wrong.

George Monbiot has been writing for The Guardian for two decades, but only during the past two or three years (sadly, belatedly, stupidly) have I found myself seeking not to miss a word he writes.

Perhaps this paragraph at Monbiot's web site sums it up.

Here are some of the things I try to fight: environmental destruction, undemocratic power, corruption, deception of the public, injustice, inequality and the misallocation of resources, waste, denial, the libertarianism which grants freedom to the powerful at the expense of the powerless, undisclosed interests, complacency.

Monbiot introduces yesterday's column.

This is the third in my occasional series on possible solutions to the many crises we face. It explores the ways in which we could restore political life by restoring community life. This means complementing state provision with something that belongs neither to government nor to the market but exists in a different sphere, a sphere we have neglected.

Here they are, in reverse order.

3. This is how people can truly take back control: from the bottom up

Our atomised communities can heal themselves. Through local initiatives we can regenerate our culture and make politics relevant again

---

2. Our democracy is broken, debased and distrusted – but there are ways to fix it

Trump and Brexit are responses to a political system that’s imploding. But could a radical redesign wrest it from the liars?

---

1. The case for despair is made. Now let’s start to get out of the mess we’re in

There is no going back, no comfort in old certainties. But reviving common ownership is one possible route to social transformation

"Affective Labor as the Lifeblood of a Commons," though not at the next 5 o'clock network.

Funny how topics like affective labor never make it to one of those One Southern Indiana daisy-chain mixers at Kye's, with Bud Light, Papa John's and lots of desperate slobbering. It's a really good read, but does the Southern Indiana business community read?

Affective Labor as the Lifeblood of a Commons, by David Blooier

We have so internalized the logic of neoliberal economics and modernity, even those of us who would like to think otherwise, that we don’t really appreciate how deeply our minds have been colonized. It is easy to see homo economicus as silly. Certainly we are not selfish, utility-maximizing rationalists, not us! And yet, the proper role of our emotions and affect in imagining a new order remains a murky topic.

That’s why I was excited to run across a fascinating paper by Neera M. Singh, an academic who studies forestry at the University of Toronto. Her paper, “The Affective Labor of Growing Forests and the Becoming of Environmental Subjects” focuses on “rethinking environmentality” in the Odisha region of India.

Core commons principles.

From NAC and some other sources, there are often calls for greater transparency and inclusivity. Certain principles should play big in public decision making and, perhaps more importantly, public ownership. We've seen some improvement in that area but, too often, closed doors and private agendas still overcome us.

On the Commons provides what it calls Nine Core Commons Principals, shared here.

“A commons arises whenever a given community decides that it wishes to manage a resource in a collective manner, with a special regard for equitable access, use and sustainability. It is a social form that has long lived in the shadows of our market culture, but which is now on the rise.” —David Bollier

Principles

    •    Without exception, we all belong to our community, and we each have an equal stake in what happens.

    •    We must recognize and repair the damage that has been done, and the inequities that have been created, by our current, market-based society.

    •    The things that belong to all of us must be named, claimed, defended, protected, and improved. We have a mutual responsibility to take care of these commons and pass them on to the next generation in better shape than we found them.

    •    We must honor our full humanity. We are not merely individuals and consumers—we are neighbors, community members, citizens, and experts on the places we live.

    •    We are surrounded by abundance and opportunity that the market does not recognize or value. We must see and claim this abundance for the benefit of all.

    •    Everyone should have the chance to participate in defining, restoring, creating, managing, leading, governing, and owning anything that is important to the future of the community.

    •    People most affected by critical decisions must be included in the process of making them.

    •    History, cultural distinctiveness and people’s personal stories are important factors in setting goals and making decisions, as well as simply understanding our community.

    •    Sufficiency and resilience are the opposite of the folly of growth.

To create a commons-based society people need more than exposure to new ideas; they need tangible ways of experiencing, practicing and living out these bright possibilities. To ensure the survival of the community and of our common assets, we must create new customs, understandings, systems, and structures.

- See more at: http://www.onthecommons.org/work/nine-core-commons-principles#sthash.Z2ZbcWey.dpuf

Elinor Ostrom: Sustainable commons, suckers, and diverse institutions.

Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University recently won the Nobel Prize in Economics for good reason. City Council Member John Gonder wrote about her conceptual framework as well and, as always, we hope his good thoughts continue on from blog pages into council chambers.

Here, in a brief lecture presented by the Stockholm Resilience Centre as part of their Stockholm whiteboard seminars, Ostrom explains "how people can use natural resources in a sustainable way based on the diversity that exists in the world."

Her focus on local knowledge of complex systems and trust as central tenants of successful resource management - and I would add built resources to a long list of natural ones - begs for more universal application. Replace the word "meadow" with "riverfront" or "neighborhood" and she could be talking about metro Louisville as easily as alpine agriculture.

We surely suffer from our share of anti-social types who would make suckers of us in exchange for a quick, short-lived buck, but I've been encouraged as of late by the increasing number of people I've been meeting who see value not just in our physical commons but in the development of community around them. It's that strength in community that will ultimately save us, perhaps from ourselves at times with diversity of thought, but most certainly from petroleum-based replacement schemes and the pernicious, individual selfishness they represent.

As we move away from a model concerned with who's wrong to one of who's most right, Ostrom's explanation, beautiful in its simplicity, is even worthier of engagement in New Albany as well as Stockholm.