Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons

Mr. John Stossel, co-anchor of ABC News’ 20/20, wrote an opinion editorial on December 11, 2007 about the Tragedy of the Commons in the Opinion Editorial of the Atlasphere: Connecting Admirers of The Fountain Head and Atlas Shrugged http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/stossel-tragedy-commons.php This article was sent to me by an Atheist who said that Mr. Stossel’s argument in support of the Tragedy of the Commons makes sense.

Throughout my life experiences as a militant Atheist, I notice, all too often, that other Atheists do not want to completely let go of the imperialist patriarchal ideology and practices so fundamental to religion. It would behoove Atheists to reconsider their cozy partnership with the imperialist patriarchal ideology by Mr. Stossel, God, and friends. Furthermore, I am responding to the TOC myth to expose bourgeois trickery.

Mr. John Stossel argues that in order to promote prosperity and responsibility, societies need private property. Mr. Stossel claims, “the pilgrims nearly starved practicing communal farming, but thrived once they switched to private cultivation”. I beg to differ. But, before I dispel the myth of the TOC, I want to dispel the use of the word pilgrim as if it is some innocuous term. I want to expose the use of the word pilgrim as a word used by bourgeois historians, liberal, libertarian, and conservative capitalists believers to obfuscate the reality of the imperialist nature behind the colonization of the America’s and which promotes the chosen people myth, via national sentimentality and/or religious fever.

The “Pilgrim” word as Trickery

The word pilgrim is one that is embraced by most non-indigenous Americans [who uphold the belief in private ownership, despite their religious background, (even though so many people pray on this day, treating it as a religious holiday)] used to describe the first Europeans who came to the “Americas”. It is understandable that the two definitions below would suit just about most Atheist Capitalists and Religious Capitalists, because belief in private ownership is just one patriarchal element that both these groups have in common. The most used definitions to describe pilgrim:

1. a newcomer to a region or place, esp. to the western U.S.. This definition sounds too neutral as if the Europeans were some good-intentioned people, peacefully just trying to find a new place to live.

2. a person who journeys, esp. a long distance, to some “sacred” place as an act of religious devotion: pilgrims to the “Holy” Land. This sounds too innocently spiritual for the real purpose as to the journey these Europeans took to the “Americas”.

It is more accurate to describe the “pilgrims” as imperialists. Imperialism is, firstly, the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies and, secondly, a way to live out the patriarchal “chosen people” myth, that both Atheist Capitalist Patriots and Religious Capitalist believers support. I will, therefore, us the words imperialists, or colonialists, conquerors, and the like instead of the word pilgrim.

The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons

One reason the European conquerors nearly starved trying to practice communal farming, is because they were completely barren of former communal knowledge and skills. Any former communalist knowledge and skills that they once possessed were sadistically choked out of them by proponents of private ownership, i.e., patriarchal economic system, institutions, and customs: church and imperialist rulers (slaveocracts and feudal landlords), and male inheritance. The Church burned, not only their pagan libraries, but hundreds and thousands of wise-women. By the time the Europeans arrived to the “America’s”, they were well indoctrinated by the patriarchal paradigm of rape, pillage, conquer, and divide and of private ownership of land, animals, and people (ownership of people as slaves, indentured servants, and concubines). If the Europeans colonialist had the full knowledge and skills of communalistic living and were not indoctrinated with the patriarchal principles of ownership, they never would have ended up on an expansionist hegemonic venture into the “Americas” in the first place. With the inevitable interdependent relationship between the Church and imperialist rulers having power over the ecology, economy, and social arrangement, people become alienated from a sense of communal living. The patriarchal property owners rely on the church to tell the poor to pray to God, and everything will be okay. Just so the slaves don’t have a rebellion to overthrow the propertied class. And that in their next life, they will live in peace. The church relies on the capitalist class to uphold their patriarchal traditions of hierarchy, myths, etc…

Furthermore, to say that the ‘pilgrims’ nearly starved trying to live communalistically, therefore, communal living is a bad practice, is an overgeneralization. If you study the Native Americans, you will see that they knew how to live communalistically, not only with each other, but the land and animals. The Native American’s did not even have a word in their vocabulary to describe private ownership when the European privateers come to the “America’s”. Chief Seattle wrote in 1854 to President Franklin Pierce;

. …How can you buy or sell the sky— the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. Yet we do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water. . . . Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. . . . When the buffaloes are all slaughtered, the wild horses all tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the views of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires, where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone

Not only did the Native American’s know how to live communalistically, so too did all the world’s people prior to the patriarchal rule over some 5000 years ago, prior to the idea of one private ownership, one male God, prior to the Church. The idea of a male God, is so intrinsically inseparable from the whole foundation of private property. Not only did the Native American’s and the people prior to patriarchy know how to live communalistically, but also more recent cultures such as the Mosuo people’s of China.

I am not saying that I believe in the matriarchal spirituality promoting superstitions. But, I am proving my point that many people outside the patriarchy, knew how to live communalistic with each other and their ecology.

Another argument I have with regards to Mr. Stossel’s argument that “the pilgrims nearly starved practicing communal farming” is that the “pilgrims” also were not historically wise to their the ecology in which they conquered. Again, the Native American’s knew how to live harmoniously with each other and their ecology.

Mr. Stossel also argued that the “pilgrims” …. “thrived once they switched to private cultivation.” How come Mr. Stossel and bourgeois history books, leave out the real reason why the pilgrims thrived on private cultivation? The truth of the matter is that these pilgrims thrived on the ownership and exploitation of black slaves. These European ownership-freaks loved to own everyone and everything they could get their greedy hands on, destroying the lives of the “other”, and using the Church to justify their ownership fetishes. Today, ownership-freaks and many average joes who believe in capitalism are often the same as those Super-patriots, and flag wavers whose national fervor mimics that of the Religious right in terms of a colonialistic history, chosen people myths, -isms, bigotry, and stupid rituals.

Mr. Stossel also argues that it is a bad thing when the “government takes our money by force and gives it to others, that’s not sharing.” According to Michael Parenti, a political analyst and professor of Yale University, in his book Contrary Notions,

“John Stossel, an ardent supporter of big agribusiness, claimed that organic food ‘could kill you’ and that catastrophic global warming is a ‘myth’. He called for privatization of Social Security, the curbing of environmental education, and the celebration of greed as a good thing for the economy.”

Mr. Stossel’s bourgeois perspective on the “pilgrims” should come of no surprise to us. Mr. Stossel, supports big agribusiness who takes from the government billions in welfare, e.g., outright welfare for the rich or as with tax subsidies, etc…. Since Mr. Stossel and friends hate government so much, they shouldn’t take money from the government at all to fund their corporations or their war machines. Mr. Stossel and friends only like government when it is sharing its money exclusively with only them. To Mr. Stossel and friends, the word, “force” does not apply when the bourgeois government’s standing armies, courts, and police are there to protect and fund their profits financed via hard labor and meager earnings from poor working class people. But they feel that when their bourgeois government may be “forced” via generals strikes, peoples uprising, etc… to share some of the wealth with the poor working class people (this wealth created by the working class anyway), such as welfare for the poor, social security, free schooling, universal health care, then they deem this as “force”.

As for property rights being associated with benefits, the bourgeois once again, only concern themselves with financial benefits; they do not operate in terms of social or environmental benefits. The few elite think only in terms of the “benefits” they alone exclusively get from their market to exploit who and what they want. They leave out the fact that these exclusive “benefits” often have a detrimental effect on people and the environment.

Mr. Stossel and friends complain that socialized health care doesn’t work. Well, for one thing, socialized medicine doesn’t work when greedy profiteers can’t, therefore, make profit off of death and disease. Furthermore, socialized medicine superimposed on top of a Capitalist patriarchal economic base has major limits. Socialized medicine in countries such as Great Britain, France, Canada, don’t work perfectly because it so happens that when you have socialized institutions resting upon a Capitalist patriarchal economic base, they won’t be perfect. And, as much as Cuba’s socialized health industry rests upon a defunct form of so called Communism, it at least has some of the best doctors in the world, doctors without borders, and allows anyone in the world, including the United States, to attend their medical schools for free. All these various forms of socialized health care industries would work better if they did not rest upon the Capitalist economic base or some makeshift version of so-called Communism --- an antagonistic relationship from the get go. A democratic socialized economic base, would be a more compatible bed fellow for socialized medicine to rest with, which would synergistically buttress the socialized health care to it’s utmost potential, never seen in all of history.

Mr. Stossel and friends like to dumb down the classism which they create with their private ownership fetishes which create masses of dispossessed people.

Capitalist doctrine mimics Church doctrine of the ownership, hierarchy, authoritarianism. Capitalist atheists should resist anything that resembles the church doctrine, therefore, they should resist Capitalist patriarchal ideology and practices.

Andrea Lavigne

1