Re: <nettime> Ubiquitous Commons and Stakhanov at transmediale in

[mp <mp@aktivix.org>]

On 21/01/15 18:06, allan siegel wrote:

>      A good start would be to define ?commons?. The fuziness about the
>      commons is ubiquitous, not the commons. See for a proposal:
>      https://niepleuen.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/introduction-to-the-commons-and-some-definitions/

Commons are as common(er)s do. Emerging from the bottom up, in their
particularity they cannot be defined from the top down generally, but --
to get a conceptual handle for the purposes of federating or other
inter-commons organisation -- can be analysed in terms of their
architecture of social relations with regard to things, or, as it were,
their property rights; e.g: http://www.commoner.org.uk/index.php?p=107

2c/mp


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org