Douglas Rushkoff has written a book Team Human (WW Norton and Co., 2019 ), excerpts of which has been carried by Evonomics on its website. The piece is available here. Rushkoff seems to posit his work as a solution to the capitalist crisis facing the world. He seems to argue the commons is a way to resolve the fractures created by capitalist excesses. Since Elinor Ostrom came up with the masterpiece Governing the Commons (Cambridge University Press, 1990), it has attracted attention from numerous scholars. It has sort of become a new theory for neo-communism if one might term it so. There is no doubt that Ostrom came up with an original thought thus cementing her place in the select few who dared to think perhaps differently. Yet, as her thoughts gathered steam, there was an attempt to replicate in various domains. To many scholars of the digital domain, the canvas provided by the digital platforms were the perfect model for seeking to replicate Ostrom in action. It is moot to view whether it was a success or not. Yet, there does exist merit in discussing her propositions.
Unlike Haddin who argued the commons would lead to a destruction of the collective, thus the word tragedy of commons, Ostrom demonstrated the commons could be governed with reasonable success as she demonstrated multiple examples from history. Taking from her, Rushkoff seems to put forth commons as an alternative to the system of capitalism. He argues the excess human greed as responsible for global problems. At the outset, while the argument in favour of the commons seem impressive and apparently persuasive, a deeper look suggests it might not necessarily be a system that would enhance economic welfare. There is a rationale for consumer surplus as also producer surplus, the sum of which is the economic surplus which some economists advocate to be the objective of the market model. He posits commons as something ‘all take the winnings’ economy rather than the winner take all economy manifested through the capitalist process. There is no doubt a merit in the argument that the cooperation should trump competition. Yet, in the human existence, it is the competition that thrives with cooperation being ancillary to the competition. There is no reason why there cannot be competition on field and partnership off-field. Interestingly, competition and cooperation are contextual and signal convergence or divergence of interests at different moments of time.
If one were to examine the merit behind this simple assertion, the very fact that the human agent wants to be recognized as something different will make him or her seek to outperform the others. If everyone were to be literally equal, there would be nothing but boredom. It is the pursuit of human achievement that seeks to foster competition, whether it is in sports, arts or business. There is an interesting line of analysis attempted in Rushkoff’s thinking. If Joe had a pizzeria, he should focus on his existing customers. In the next town, he perhaps leaves it to Samantha. There can be cooperation between the two and each take care of their customers. The question unanswered is would Joe give it for free as seems to be suggested by Rushkoff. He anticipates a reciprocal altruism. This arises in the context of something that Joe can expect from Samantha. Yet, at the moment when he decides to share the recipe, he might not have any concrete reciprocal offer. There might be an occasion like Samantha discovering an improvement in the recipe and sharing with Joe. At the moment however, this is in the conjecture of the future. There is uncertainty. In the anticipation of something that might arise with no pre-determined probability, this might be a non-starter. If Joe’s pizzas are really good and everybody from all over want to taste the same, Joe would naturally expect something in return more than mere abstract recognition rather than mere content in enjoying cooking pizzas as seem to be suggested by Rushkoff. Secondly, it posits, that the others too would reciprocate and there exists a significant penalty for violation. This would simply not stand the test of scale.
Let us imagine if someone defects from the cooperation game. The incentive to defect would be a function of lowering possibilities of facing penalties. If the defector or the cheater cannot be penalised or the chance of being penalised is negligible, there is a greater likelihood of defection. The greater the chances of being penalised, the lower the chances for defection. This carrot and stick scheme would work in villages or smaller towns but does not extend itself to larger canvas. As the canvas broadens, it would be difficult to monitor cheaters. There is nothing for instance to prevent someone from copying the recipe and starting their own in some distant place without being detected. The solution then would perhaps be a legal recourse which will bring back to the capitalist process rather than the norm based commons process. The commons would find itself applicable at smaller populations wherein the name and shame would be an effective tool. Yet, beyond the same, the commons might find itself at disadvantage and subject to diminishing returns. The critical community at which the commons would offer the maximization of societal returns is undetermined. As evidence from multiple sources show, the commons would eventually give away to sort of capitalist ownership at least in practice if not in theory. Wikipedia on paper is essentially a commons based production. Yet in practice, Wikipedia has turned into a cabal of editors who have their own whims and fancies that would reflect on the pages. The barriers to entry with passage of time have increased and enough instances exist where there allegations of favouritism being exercised. What began as commons based venture has now descended into a venture of a cabal that dominates the discourse. It is just one example to illustrate.
To those in the community, there is always an incentive to seek greater power and thus would seek to erect barriers of entry. This was one reason perhaps for failures of collectivism in the Soviet Union or in China. For every Amul that succeeded in India, there are around thousand cooperatives that have collapsed or become tools for money-laundering, political lobbying etc. The only success, though one might debate the degree would be the kibbutz in Israel. As one reads the ideas of Rushkoff, while they appear something good, yet they are more of wishful thinking of an Utopia that might not necessarily come anytime soon.
Thoughts on Theory and Practice 