D'y'know what's funny? There are books being sold on the topic of decommodification. I don't know if that makes me happy for its sheer ridiculousness or sad like when I see stagnant, established "Anarchist symbols". Oxymorons and contradictions have a beautiful unity, perfect irony, and somehow a structural integrity. There is a tension that cannot be resolved, and it always on the brink of collapse, yet is too lusciously balanced to fall. That's not what I want to talk about, though. Decommodifying. The tragedy of the commons. I find it terrifying that in modern society, if things aren't assigned some sort of economic value and purchased by someone, we either are or think we are incapable of taking care of them or valuing them. Non-monetary value can be expressed in economic terms, which is a step forward of sorts (looking beyond GDP), but it still feels horribly wrong. It's mercenary and cynical. Yes, that's why I don't like it. It's like characterizing a throbbing, emotional, human relationship in terms of gains and losses--costs and benefits. It makes it easier to imagine it ethical to exchange goods and services for intangibles like love, trust, and respect. We already make some of these trades, but unwittingly, and in a sense: innocently.
Decommodify: to take the trade and barter out of basic human essentials and return common resources and intangible human assets to their natural--noncommercial--state. In other words: stop selling things like environmental quality, health, happiness, education etc. In a technical and cold, calculating sense, one most certainly may put a price on these things, but it is deeply unethical and should be stopped.
More on this later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment