Moreover, if capitalists wanted a “third bottom line”, then they wouldn’t have settled for ONE bottom line, about 500-years ago. Under capitalism, the solitary question is about “shareholders value”, not what “managers” are capable or willing to manage. We can’t impose limits on individual power, under capitalism. As soon as we do, the system is no longer capitalism at all, but hopefully a far more equitable — “operating system”.

Under capitalism, individual power is not derived from personal merit or innovation, but rather from the exloitation of others, who have less access to the abundant resources generated in economies of scale. The exploiters dispose of the surplus to increase their individual power, regardless of larger societal needs.

To contrast, James K. Galbraith recently presented another alternative:

“If you are a business in Sweden or Norway, there is one thing you are not free to do. You are not free to cut wages. You are not free to compete by going after cut-rate workers, either native or immigrant. You are not free to undercut the union rate. Successful businesses must, therefore, find other ways to compete. They do it by keeping productivity high. This means that advanced industries thrive in Scandinavia, while backward ones die out. (And that progressive businessmen prosper, while reactionaries fade away.) As a result, the economies stay competitive. The tax and welfare systems then make sure that everyone has enough to live on”, (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/05/james_galbraith.html).

This is called the “Scandanavian Model”, according to Mr. Galbraith, and Sweden’s government is unfortunately the largest in the world by far. Years ago, I believe it was his father, John Kenneth Galbraith, who proposed a “guaranteed minimum income” that would “make sure everyone has enough to live on” AND minimize the size of government. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a vocal advocate of guaranteed minimum income, (“Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos Or Community?”, pg 161-166).

But regardless of which plan we choose — Barnes, Galbraith I, Galbraith II, or something of our own creation — the plan must unfortunately be legislated and enforced by some form of — government. Moreover, who will BE the “trustees” of the “commons sector” that Mr. Barnes proposes? While I haven’t read the entirety of his book, I can take a fairly educated guess at something like — “We The People”, who suffer from a poverty of both time and income as a result of corporate domination.

Therefore, as Dr. King suggests, we as a society must collectively agree on at least a few very fundamental values, and organize against irrational authority by means of “economic withdrawal”. Whether we do this now or later doesn’t really matter. As Peter Barnes recommends, we must plan ahead for a new model. We must have an economic model to fall back on. But once that new model seems viable, “economic withdrawal” from the old model is probably the only way to — “Git-R-Done” — and it ain’t gonna be pretty.

Ever take a toy away from a two-year-old brat and tell him to lay down and take a NAP? How would it be if that “two-year-old brat” had most of the resources and power in the world at his disposal? What would his multi-trillion-dollar “tantrum” look like then?

Welcome to “Capitalism 3.0″, and thanks for reading.

The idea of commons goes back to England where peasants had the right to have their sheep pasture in the commons, lands that can be used by all. Also the peasants could take wood for fuel from the commons and have their pigs forage for food in the commons. Other cultures have commons. Mexico had ejidos, common lands where all the villages could use. Other European countries had commons. Tribal Native American and Africa had commons.

In England the enclosures ended the commons: large landowners claimed the commons as their own private property, and made it a crime for the poor to use it. The enclosure of the commons bankrupt the rural poor in England who were then forced to go work in the new factories or stare. The commons is not a co-op, a worker owned business. The commons is publicly owned. People negotiate how to use a commons, and sometimes that works well, but right now the ocean commons is not being well negotiated. Right now many people we are dealing with new enclosures as corporations are trying to take public things–seeds, air, water, knowledge–and market them.

I just gave a speech on the desert commons at the Crises in the Commons Conference in Berkeley sponsored by the California Studies Association. It was a wonderful conference. All the speeches are online at Crises of the Commons Conference. crisesofthecommons.org and see their audio archive.

And there’s no question about “could it be done?” because it already IS being done. For example, the number of people employed by co-ops worldwide exceeds that of the number employed by Fortune 500 companies.

I could elaborate, but it’s late. So check out this info page from the National Co-op Business Association: http://www.ncba.coop/abcoop.cfm