The original meaning of the term ‘commons’ comes from the way communities managed land that was held ‘in common’ in medieval Europe. Along with this shared land a clear set of rules was developed by the community about how it was to be used. International Association for the study of The Commons
Curiously, the Commons is claimed as an English concept. The British House of Representatives is called The Commons. But so too is the common ownership of land recognised in England. What are some famous Commons in England? Blackheath, Wimbledon, and Putney. The Commons are patrolled by special constables for the purposes of enforcing legislation and bylaws.
The Commons that we speak of here has little to do with that . Our basic idea is that the land and nature that surrounds it, such as air, water, and natural materials, do not belong to anybody. It follows that we reject the notion of sovereignty and nation state. That is not to say that people lack a connection to land. Some people. Not people like Donald Trump who has spent his life living in hotels. For Trump land is real estate. Not for us.
The future will depend on the commons democratic structure. At this stage, the Commons is relying upon people’s assemblies, which are democratic. Decision-making is by majority popular vote. Proposals are put through the chairperson. Consensus is respected, but it’s hard to get to consensus, Especially when you are under threat. True, the people running the show are young, they have more energy, fewer commitments, and therefore more time.
During Occupy, we were holed up near the big banks in Post Office Square. Police, NGOs, Council, and state government put enormous pressure on us to leave. I can remember a 6-hour meeting, operating under the rules of consensus, finally deciding to leave the city. This was a terrible mistake. Before we left I went around and asked eight of the most experienced activists whether they agreed with the decision. Seven of the eight told me it was a mistake. It was because we were challenging the heart of finance, occupying a park elsewhere we couldn’t do that. But we went along with it and moved into a park outside the city. We were welcomed by some Aboriginal people. What we didn’t know was that night there was to be a murder in the park where a woman was hit over the head with a rock and killed. Even though it had nothing to do with Occupy, our days were numbered. In the weeks that followed, the 99% were defeated by the 1%.
Like a netball team, this Common is broken up into offence and defence. Defence means stopping the bulldozers. This will be difficult because the law does not recognize the Commons. Thinking otherwise, a local community association sought redress in the courts to stop the state from taking possession of the Commons. Who owns the land? They do. It would have been better to spend the $1200 it cost on a paid organiser for a month.
The Commons has two powers: occupation of the site and popular support. This brings us to offence. Our job is to convince people that The Commons public land owned by no one is a good idea. The land has sat by the River and for most of its life not been touched. In 1928 they wanted to build a Tramway across the river. It never happened. In 2017 they wanted to build a bicycle bridge across the river. It never happened. In 2021 they wanted to access the land to help the developer. It hasn’t happened because we are here. They want to make things easier for the developer next door they don’t want it for a Tramway they don’t want it for a bicycle path they wanted for profit. If they can’t make profit they’ll use it as storage for heavy machinery while the lot next door makes money.
We were thinking long term: Referenda, Direct Democracy, Public Assemblies, and building democratic rights over the land owned by no one. If anything, the land owns us.
Of course by that time the Commons may have been bulldozed. While we were meeting, a semi trailer had difficulty taking a giant digging machine away from the development next door. A couple of doors down, seven trees are marked for pulling down show that they can build a millionaires paradise on the banks of the Maiwar.
Asbestos and lead lie in the soil next door. Next door doesn’t even have a link to the sewerage line. The developer has council and state government in his pocket. The land is contaminated with copper, zinc, and recoverable hydrocarbons (petroleum products or organic matter?).
And the authorities are complaining about us, who have a garden, film showings, a frog pond, some memorial trees, and basic solidarity. What do the private owners who paid millions to live in this paradise by the river, what do they think? Probably that we are breaking the law and that the law protects them. They may even say we are idealists and romantics, that the land has to belong to someone and it may as well be them. I heard an Israeli settler say the same words when he stole the land from a Palestinian family.
In the 1970s I lived on the river for three years, just across from the Commons. I remember the dredges, the weekend skiers, the rowing clubs training with their shouting masters trying to get them to go faster. But I also remember the quiet of the winter moon, the crabs clicking in the mangroves, young lovers on the pontoon, and schoolboys catching catfish. I remember the raging current of the 1974 flood, pylons, boats losing their moorings, floating fridges, and looters.
There is only one way to win the commons, and that is to fight for it. Palestinians marched back to northern Gaza. Why can’t we return the Commons to the community?
Long live the Commoners!
Ian Curr
27 February 2025