Introduction

从去年10月开始，706M-Lab翻译小组与Uncommons开始共同推进Michel Bauwens与另外两位作者的著作《P2P共有资源宣言》的中文翻译工作。1月底，在《P2P共有资源宣言》一书的翻译初稿和校对完成以后，我们与Michel进行了线上的工作坊。翻译与校对的参与成员和Michel共同讨论了本书中核心术语的翻译，并围绕本书进行了一些问答。这些讨论为本书的未来的中文读者提供了一个内部的，运动中的视角：如何理解Commons, Peer等核心术语在Michel语境中的意义？英文版发布8年后，Michel本人又发现了哪些变化和值得增补的现象？

出席

Michel Bauwens
P2P基金会，世界本地化基金会创始人，跨地域自组织的长期观察者

Q
《P2P共有资源宣言》翻译组

7k
翻译项目负责人

DC
706成员，本书翻译负责人

Luren
本书校对负责人

Part 1
关于本书：问Michel的几个问题
About this book: Several questions for Michel

Q

如果在现在要写这本书，会有什么想改变的吗？

If the book were to be written now, would there be anything you would want to change in the content?

Michel: 

我个人不认为这本书过时了，但有些东西已经发生了变化，比如最初那种形式的分布式制造有些停滞了——当我们写这本书时，那是一个民用无人机的时代。人们会设计开源无人机，随后他们会寻找中国的工厂来制造它。但我认为这种生产模式其实是走向了另一个方向。

I personally don't think that the book is outdated. Some things have changed, and you are probably right to say that there's a bit of a stalling of the original dynamic of distributed manufacturing. When we wrote it, this was a time of civic drones. People would design it open source, but then they would look for factories in China that would actually make it. But I would actually still think that it took another direction. 

2017年我在根特做了一项研究。我们展示了在10年内，碳中和供应系统的共有资源项目从50个发展到了500个。包括集体购买有机食品、共享交通、成立食品合作社、住房合作社、可再生能源合作社等等，德国60%的可再生能源是由乡村合作社完成的。这是一个真实的现象。

I did a study in Ghent in 2017. We showed that the number of commons-centric citizen initiatives neutralizing their provisioning systems went from 50 to 500 in 10 years. So collective purchasing of organic food, shared transportation, food coops, housing coops, renewable energy cooperatives, 60 % of the renewable energy in German is done by village coops. This is a real thing. 

另外，我认为一种“世界本地性”（cosmo-localism）已在议程之上。我相信我们现在正在“双向全球化”，技术堆栈、金融堆栈以及供应链正在被分成两部分。像金砖国家（BRICKS）这样的集团在对抗美国，而美国正在迫使他们的民众在一定程度上切断与中国制造业的联系。有很多去风险化和重新本地化的趋势，也许不是在非常本地的层面上，但美国在做，欧洲在做，世界上很多人实际上正在考虑重新本地化他们的部分生产供应链。所以这是一个真实的现象。当然，这并不是我想要的分布式制造。但我认为它仍然非常重要。

I don't think the book is that outdated and I think cosmo-localism is really on the agenda, the other reason is that I believe we are now bi-globalizing, the tech stack, the financial stack, the supply chain is being split in two. You have like BRICKS versus US, US is forcing their people to cut ties with Chinese manufacturing to a certain degree. There's a lot of de-risking and re localization going on, maybe not at a very local level, but US is doing it, Europe is doing it, many people in the world are actually looking at re-localizing parts of their production supply chain. So this is a real thing. Of course it's not distributed manufacturing like I want it to be. But I think it's still very much on the agenda. 

尤其是Web3创造了许多可以用于跨本地协调的工具。所以如果要我更新一下的话，我会强调加密技术和Web3如何为跨本地互助化创造了更多的能力。

And especially Web3 has created so many tools that can be used for trans-local coordination. So I think if I would write an update, I would stress how crypto and Web3 have created so many more capacity for trans-local mutualization.

我正在写的新书已经有四章完成，它是一部关于互助协调的历史，展示出一种正在兴起的第三种方式。例如，生物区域主义现在非常流行。如果你在欧洲举办任何关于生物区域主义的会议，都会有2000人参加。我们已经有了一个生物区域融资设施系统。它仍然很小，可能只有2-3%的人在这样做。但这种现象的发生是重要的。我认为也许前言应该强调这一点，即地缘政治紧张，供应链的去风险化和本地化趋势正在增强。数字游民社区也在大幅增长，全球有1500万数字游民，包括许多来到清迈的中国人。

My new book I’m writing, I have four chapters ready, is a history of mutual coordination, and then showing there's like a third way that is emerging. For example, bioregionalism is very big now. Like if you do any meeting on bioregionalism in Europe, you have 2,000 people. And we already have a bioregional financing facility system. It's still very small. Maybe 2-3 % of the people are doing this. But it's significant that this is happening. I think maybe the forward should stress this that there are geopolitical tensions that there is a shift towards more de-risking of supply chains and more localization. There is a big growth of nomadic community, we have 15 million digital nomads in the world, including many Chinese coming to Chiang Mai. 

这是我目前正在做的事情，因为我实际上正在创建一个名为“世界本地性基金会”的新组织，目的是将本地再生生产与Web3协调联系起来，同时也涉及资本流动，寻找与本地再生生产兼容的法律和适当的所有权形式。

This is what I’m doing now, because I'm actually creating a new foundation called the cosmo-local foundation, is to link local regenerative production to Web3 coordination, but also capital flows, finding legal and proper property forms are compatible with local regenerative production. 

让我解释一下我今天的愿景：本地的，再生性替代方案正在兴起，但它们面临着潜在敌对的民族国家和跨国金融。有两种方式可以使其变得更强大。一种是横向建立生物区域联盟，所有从事不同生产的人在本地连接起来，以在本地变得强大。而世界本地性的选择是创建全球的、聚焦特定领域的联盟。比如所有的永续农业和社区土地信托都有共同的知识、目标、合作协议、智能合约，以及吸引对该领域发展感兴趣的资金的能力。我认为这创造了与国家与市场并列的第三支柱，自下而上增长，创造了跨本地性的现实。我认为区块链是穿透新世界的方式，展示了摆脱民族国家冲突的出路。毕竟没有什么比中国和美国最终对决更危险的了。

So let me explain my vision today. You have this emergence of local, regenerative alternatives, but they are facing potentially hostile nation state, and transnational finance. There's two ways to get stronger. One is horizontally doing bioregional alliances, all the people doing different production connecting together locally to be locally strong. And the cosmo-local option is to create a global, domain specific alliances. So all the permaculture and all the community land trust have common knowledge, goals, protocols of cooperation, smart contracts, and the capacity to attract funding that is interested in the development of this sector. And I think this creates a third pillar right next to the state and the market, grows bottom up and creates trans-local reality. I think blockchain is the new world piercing through, showing there's a way out of nation state conflict. Because it's nothing more dangerous than China and the US fighting it out eventually.

7k：

亚历山大·加洛韦用P2P来描述去中心化网络的关系动态。但在你的叙述中，你将其扩展为一种生产模式。你能告诉我们你是如何开始接触这个概念并选择它作为你的核心思想的吗？

Alexander Galloway used P2P to describe a relational dynamic of the decentralized web. But in your narrative, you expand it into production mode. Can you tell us more about how did you started to get into this and choose it as your main concept?

Michel: 

我不太记得我是如何逐渐构建这些想法和概念的了，但我确实从多位作者和资源中汲取了灵感。

I don’t think I can remember exactly how I gradually built up these ideas and concepts. But I did gather inspirations from multiple authors and resources.

我从加洛韦那里学到的是“协议的力量”。这个观点认为，今天的权力在于协议。一旦你进入数字领域，数字化的运作方式就会将你限制在协议中，就像建筑将你限制在墙壁和建筑物中一样。

What I got from  Galloway was more like Protocol power. It's the idea that today the power is in protocols. Once you have digital, the way the digital works is, it constrains you to protocols. Just as architecture constraints you to walls and buildings.

我从Yochai Benkler那里学到了“对等生产”的概念。读完他的作品后，我很快意识到，对等技术不仅仅是计算机之间的，实际上是使用它们的人之间的。因为如果你能在计算机之间实现P2P，那么背后的人也可以实现P2P。所以，我将这个概念从技术视角提升到了人类视角，将对等视为一种社会技术，一种跨地域关联的方式。对等本质上是跨地域的自我组织，它自然而然地创造了跨地域共同生产的能力。最初是非物质性的，比如自由软件、自由设计和共有知识。但当你将其嵌入生产系统时，它就变得自动化了，这意味着它会进入物质生活中。

I got the notion of peer production from Yochai Benkler. After reading his work, very soon It seemed to me that, peer-to-peer technology was not just the computers, but actually the people using them. Because if you can do P2P with computers, that means that the people behind it can also do P2P. So I kind of lifted it up from the technological vision to the human vision, where peer to peer became a social technology, a way to associate trans-locally. For me, peer to peer is basically trans-local self-organization, which then also automatically creates the capacity to produce trans-locally together. At first it is Immaterially, like free software, design, and shared knowledge. But then as you embed it in productive systems, it is automatic, which means that you can do it in material life.

关于价值评估的想法，我从Alan Page Fiske那里得到了启发。过去，我习惯于从生产模式的角度思考问题，这可能是因为我身上有一些马克思主义的影子。但在读了Alan的书《社会生活的结构》后，我转向了交换模式。他提出了处理价值的四种基本方式：前两种是共同持股和与整体交换，这对每个人都有好处；后两种是平等和匹配，也就是礼物经济。礼物交换是为了回礼，市场交换则是根据某种共同标准交换等值的东西（他称之为权威排名，即根据等级分配）。你可以用这四种方式分析几乎所有事物。例如，在家庭中，大多数人会采用共同持股的方式。你不会向你的孩子卖东西，而是直接给他们，因为这是家庭。你可以用这种方式分析社会生活。

As for the ideas about valuation, I got inspiration from Alan Page Fiske. In the past, I used to think in terms of modes of production, I guess that is probably because I have some Marxist part in me. But I shifted to modes of exchange after reading Alan’s book, Structures of Social Life. He says there's four basic ways to deal with value, the first two ways are communal shareholding and exchanging with the totality, which is good for everyone. The last two ways are equality and matching, which is the gift economy. Gifting for counter gift, Market exchange for equal value according to some common standard (He calls it authority ranking, distributing according to rank). You can analyze almost everything using those four ways. For example, if you're in a family, most people would do communal shareholding. You're not selling anything to your kids. You're giving it to them because it's the family. You can analyze social life that way.

除了这种方法，我还读了柄谷行人的著作。他从历史发展的角度审视了价值过程的问题。在他看来，最早的交换模式是共同持股，那时有小型的游牧银行。随着定居，人们需要和平相处，于是出现了礼物经济。你向邻居赠送礼物以建立良好关系。一旦有了征服活动，就会出现权威排名，这基本上是国家的保护主义和再分配出现的原因。国家为市场提供了安全保障，于是市场得以形成。因此，我们最终通过市场交换价值，这就是交换模式。交换模式也解释了为何人们会具有不同形态的意识。举个极端的例子：假设你身处黑手党，你会杀害敌人，但对家人却非常友善，这是因为他们处于不同形态的交换模式中。 

Apart from this method, I also read Kojin Karatani. Kojin karatani looked at the issue of value process from the historical development perspective. For him, the first mode come about is communal shareholding, by then you have small banks and nomadic banks. Then as you settle, you need to make peace. Then you need a gift economy. You give gifts to your neighbors, so as to create good relationships. Once you have conquest, you get authority ranking, which is basically, protection and redistribution to the state. And the state enables the market because you need security for having markets. So then you have the market. Thus, we eventually end up trading value through the market, which is basically the mode of exchange.Most of the exchange is interesting in the sense that it can also explain why people can have different forms of consciousness. A really bad example would be like you're in a mafia, you kill your enemies, but you can be very friendly with your family. Because he's in different forms of exchange. 

我对最近在读的一本书非常感兴趣，作者叫Ben Suriano，他撰写了这本《从生产模式到身体的复活》，展示了灵性如何作为表达人类计划的一种重要方式。希腊人和罗马人有奴隶劳动，所以他们不尊重劳动。基督徒则强调“祈祷与劳动”，必须祈祷和工作。他认为，否定身体的观念是不真实的，重要的不仅仅是灵魂——在希腊，柏拉图说身体是灵魂的坟墓——这不对，因为身体也会复活。这意味着不仅精神是神圣的，物质也是神圣的。理解宗教如何为人类思维创造深刻的容器非常重要。在这些容器中，你可以以非常不同的方式表达事物。

Recently I'm reading a book which I want to mention, because I am so enthusiastic about it. it's a guy called Ben Suriano, he is a PhD, and he wrote a book called From modes of production to the resurrection of the body. He shows how important spirituality is as a way of expressing human plans. The Greeks and the Romans had slave labor, so they didn't respect labor. But the Christians have to pray and work. He reads the notion of rejection of the body is not true, it's not just the soul that is important. With the Greeks, Plato says the body is a tomb of the soul. No, the body is going to be resurrected as well. And that means matter is sacred. Not just the spirit is sacred, but matter is also sacred.I think that's very important to understand how religion creates very profound containers for human thinking. In which you can express things in very different ways.

Part 2
术语翻译讨论
Discussion about terminological translation 

Q:

“P2P中的‘互惠’（reciprocity）也可以是一种分配资源的模式，这种模式不涉及个体之间的特定互惠，而只涉及个体与集体资源之间的互惠。”这里的“reciprocity”是翻译为“互惠”（do mutual good）还是“互酬”（mutual pay）更好？

Reciprocity’ in ‘P2P can also be a mode to allocate resources that do not involve any specific reciprocity between individuals but only between the individuals and the collective resource.’ is better translated to 互惠 (do mutual good) or 互酬 (mutual pay)? 

Michel: 

在这个上下文中，“pay”（支付）完全不合适。在人类学中，有一种叫做“广义互惠”和“特定互惠”的概念。在礼物经济中，我给你一些东西，你实际上会觉得你必须回报我一些东西。广义互惠就像，如果我在Linux中解决了一个bug，并没有特定的人必须回报我什么。我是为集体做的。互惠的真正含义是你给予一些东西，你也会得到一些回报，所以社会中有一种平衡。人们不会只索取而不给予，这保持了社会的整体平衡。我认为“互惠”很好。“互酬”则完全不合适。这不是关于支付的。它可以是行动、礼物或贡献，与支付无关。

I don't think pay is good at all in this context. In anthropology, there's something called generalized versus specific reciprocity. In the gift economy, I give you something and that actually you feel that you have to give me something back. Generalized reciprocity is like, if I solve a bug in Linux. There is no specific person that has to give me something back. I do it for the collective. And reciprocity is really the idea that you give something, you get something back, so there's balance in society. People are not taking without giving and that keeps the overall balance of society. I think mutual good is good. Mutual pay, I think that's not it at all. It's not good. It's not about payment. It's it can be an action, it can be a gift, it can be a contribution. It's nothing to do with pay. 

翻译组注
DC：这个问题也可能是由于，Michel在本书中引用了日本哲学家柄谷行人关于互惠的分析，因为日语汉字的原文是“互酬”，在目前对柄谷行人著作的汉语翻译中往往直接将日语“互酬”两字原封不动地使用了。在日语词典中的解释可以看到，日语的“酬”的含义是返还、回报，所以这对日语理解没有问题。但是在今天的汉语使用中，“互惠”更能准确表达reciprocity的含义。

Q:

Copyfair（著作还/版权互惠/公平复制/互惠复制），Copyright（著作权/版权保护），Copyleft（著作传/版权释放）。这里显然有一个文字游戏。我们肯定可以翻译“Copyright”，不过你能给我们简单介绍一下“Copyfair”和“Copyleft”吗？

Copyfair (著作还/版权互惠/公平复制/互惠复制), copyright(著作权/版权保护), copyleft(著作传/版权释放). There's clearly a word play here. We can definitely translate copyright, but can you give us a like a brief introduction to copyfair and copyleft?

Michel:

 “Copyright”是指某样东西是我的，你要么必须付钱给我，要么必须得到我的许可才能分享。所以默认情况下，我们是不分享的。“Copyleft”则恰恰相反，我们总是分享它。自由软件、开源软件就是这样。如果你基于该许可证编写代码，那么你必须将其交给集体。其他人也可以使用你的代码、分享你的代码并在你的代码基础上进行构建。而“Copyleft”的问题是，如果它对所有人开放，那么它也向大型跨国公司开放。它们往往会主宰开源社区，因为它们有更多的资源。

Copyright is, something is mine and you either have to pay me or ask my permission to share. So the default is we're not sharing. Copyleft is just the opposite. We always share it. Free software, open source. It's like, if you write codes based on the license, then you have to give it to the collective. Anybody else can also use your code and share your code and build on your code. And the problem with copyleft was that if it's open to everybody, it's also open to big multinationals. They tend to dominate open-source communities, because they have more resources. 

“Copyfair”更像是强化了的互惠要求——分享没问题，但如果你想赚钱，你必须为社区做出贡献。它只与那些也做出贡献的群体分享，所以它必须是公平的，正义、公平、公正必须存在，因为在“Copyleft”中，你可以下载免费软件并使用它，而不必回报任何东西。所以在某些情况下，这可能会被认为是不公平的，因为你使用了它，却没有给予任何回报。

So copyfair is more like reinforced reciprocity demands. It's like we share. And that's okay. But if you want to make money, you have to contribute to the community specifically. It's like sharing, but only with a group that also contributes, so it has to be fair, right? Justice, fair, fairness has to be, because in copyleft, what you can do is I can download free software. I can use it. I don't have to give anything back. So that could be interpreted in some conditions as not being fair, because you using it, but you're not giving anything back. 

“Copyfair”更加社会连带主义，它要求形式上的互惠。通常的做法是你有一个“CC非商业”许可证，所有人都可以使用，但如果你想用它赚钱，那么你必须付费，然后你会得到“CC商业”许可证。所以它是一个分层系统，有一层人可以使用但不能用它赚钱，但如果你想赚钱，那么你必须支持实际完成工作的社区。它介于这两个极端之间。

So copy fair is more solidaristic. It demands formal reciprocity. Usually the way it's done is you have cc non commerce for everybody. So the creative commons, non-commercial, but if you want to make money with it, then you have to pay. And then you get creative commons commercial. So it's like a layered system when you have a layer of people can use it, but can't make money with it. But if you want to make money, then you have to support the community that actually did the work. It's in between those two other extremes.

7k：

我感觉原本的翻译试图保留这个文字游戏，所以做了一些中文中的谐音，但是第一眼看上去似乎无法理解。

I think the original version of translation wants to kept this word play. So they did some puns in Chinese. But it seems to me a little weird because I cannot understand it from like the first glance. 

DC:

Michel为我们解释清楚了意义，我们可以使用版权互惠/互惠复制这个翻译，并提及“Copyfair”是强调在互惠性上达成的一致。

I think Michel clarifies the meaning for us. We have already one choice is 版权互惠 or 互惠复制. We should mention that copyfair is like the agreement that reinforce the reciprocity.

Q:

“Netarchical”是一个新词，你认为哪个翻译更合适：网霸（Internet Grabbing/Occupying），网络等级制（Internet Hierarchy），网络垄断（Internet Monopoly）？

Netarchical is a new word, which one you think would fit it better: 网霸(internet grabbing/occupying)，网络等级制(internet hierarchy)，网络垄断(internet monopoly)?

Michel: 

我认为第二个最好。“Netarchical”是指互联网的等级制度。它来自希腊语“ἀρχικός”（arkhikós，意为“能够统治”），所以是一种等级制度。“internet hierarchy”或“network hierarchy”都很好。如果你有“network hierarchy”这个词，我认为它会比“internet hierarchy”更好。

I think the second one is the best. So Netarchical is the hierarchy of the internet. It's from the Greek ‘ἀρχικός (arkhikós, “able to govern)’. So hierarchy, right? I think internet hierarchy or network hierarchy would be good. If you have a word for network hierarchy, I think it would be better than just internet hierarchy. 

现在的人们不再谈论“技术封建主义”（techno feudalism）了，但它与我最初的意思非常相似。我使用的很多词后来都被其他人使用了，但“Netarchical”从未真正流行起来，不过我仍然喜欢它。我认为它准确地表达了它的含义。“技术封建主义”我觉得有点误导性，因为封建主义是基于领主与臣民之间的互惠关系。而我不认为“技术封建主义者”会给予任何回报。

I just want to say that newer people, they're not talking about techno feudalism, but it's very similar meaning to what I originally meant. There's a lot of words that I use that have been used by all the people after. But Netarchical has never really caught on, but I still like it. I think it says what it is. Because techno feudalism, I found a bit misleading, because feudalism is based on reciprocity between the lord and the subject. I don't think the techno feudalist are giving anything back, so.

Q:

“Pooling”在中文语境中并不是一个非常常见的术语。在软件工程领域，它有时被翻译为“池化”（pooling），而在金融或关于共有资源（Commons）的讨论中，它通常被翻译为“汇集”（gathering）或类似的东西。我们觉得如何翻译这个词有点挑战。也许使用这个术语的优势在于它描述了共有资源在各个领域的使用。作者在选择这个词时是否有特定的领域在脑海中？

"Pooling" is not a very common term in the Chinese context. In the field of software engineering, it is sometimes translated as "池化" (pooling), and in finance or discussions of Commons, it often translated as "汇集" (gathering) or something similar. We find it a bit challenging to decide how to translate this word. Perhaps the advantage of using this term lies in its description of the use of Commons across various fields. Whether the authors had a particular field in mind when they chose this term？

Michel: 

Pooling来自于Elinor Ostrom的《公共事务的治理之道（governance of the commons）》中关于共有资源的思考。他几十年来一直在使用“common pool resources”（此前中文译为“公共池塘资源”）。我确信一些中国人肯定已经以某种方式翻译了它。我不知道他们用什么，但如果你看一下Elinor的公地理论，你可能会找到合适的中文翻译。

Basically there's a tradition of commons thinking by Elinor Ostrom, governance of the commons? He's been using common pool resources for many decades. I'm pretty sure some Chinese people must have already translated it in a particular way. I don't know what they use, but I think if you look into like commons theory from Elinor. You'll probably find the appropriate Chinese language translation.

这个词的起源是在物理资源方面，比如森林、河流、公共牧场。所以它是基于对实际物理资源的研究，而不是软件或金融，那些是后来才出现的。另一个可以替代的词是“mutualization”（互助化），它是将资源放在公地里供所有人使用。

The origin is more in physical resources, like forest commons, river commons, common pastures. So it's based on the study of actually physical resources, not software or finance, that came after, right? And another word for it would be mutualization. It's putting resources in common for everyone. 

Luren: 

这实际上有个问题，因为在中文中，“pooling”这个词很可能只与金融或AI训练相关，而与共有资源无关。

That's actually have a problem, because in Chinese ‘pooling’ itself is most likely only about finance or AI training, but never about commons.

7k: 

而且“pooling”本身听起来像是将某些东西私有化。这完全相反。

Also like pooling itself sounds like making something private. It's completely the opposite.

Michel: 

是的，如果它有那种含义，那肯定不是一个好的翻译。

Yeah, that's certainly not a good translation if it has that connotation.

（经过讨论，翻译组将Pooling译为“资源汇合”）（The translation is settled on “资源汇合(resource gathering)” at last）

7k：

关于“Commons”翻译。在西方，“共有资源”（Commons）与“公共品”（Public Goods）是完全对立的概念，后者是由国家自上而下提供的。但在中文里，这两个词并没有明显的区别。因此，当 Web3 圈子的人在谈论“Commons”时，中文的翻译依然是“公共物品”。这种翻译实际上偏向了后者，而不是前者。当然，这也取决于我们如何定义“共有资源”。

I want to ask about the translation problem of the ‘commons’. In Western, the ‘commons’ stands for something completely opposite to the ‘public good’, which is provided top down from state. But in Chinese, there is no difference between these two translations. So now when Web3 people say ‘commons’, in Chinese we still interpret it as ‘public goods’. The translation is literally about the public goods but not ‘commons’. Although it also depends on how do you define commons.

Michel：

在我看来，最重要的是恢复这些词的历史谱系，看看在中国历史上是否曾经存在过类似的概念。在弗拉芒语（一种带比利时口音的荷兰语）中，我们也遇到了类似的问题。过去根本没有“Commons”这个词，因为直到 30 年前没人关注这个概念。但后来，我们重新创造了一个词，让它重新进入语言体系。但在拉丁语中，这一点非常清晰：“Res communis”（公有物）和“Res publica”（公共物）是完全不同的。“Res communis”指的是共有资源，“Res publica”指的是国家提供的公共资源。在中文里，我们也必须认真思考这个问题。这两者的区别至关重要，涉及到自管理、所有权和治理模式，这三者的差异巨大。

What would be a priority in my view is to recover the genealogy of these words. And to actually see what was used in China before, because maybe there was a term. In Flemish we have to do that as well, there was no word for the Commons because nobody was thinking about it until like 30 years ago. When there was a word that is mint, then we're reviving that word. But in in Latin it's very clear, ‘Res communis’, ‘Res publica’ are very different things. ‘Res communis’ is the Commons and ‘Res publica’ is the public. You have to do that in Chinese as well. You have to really think about this. The difference is very important, Self-managed, ownership and governance, that's a huge difference.

Q:

所以对于“commons”，我们现在坚持使用“共有资源”，即每个人都拥有的资源，每个人都有所有权。

So before we get to the last one ‘commoning’, I want to share with Michel how we translate ‘commons’ and also ‘peer’, these two central terms. So for commons, now, we stick to ‘共有资源’, which is resources that everyone owns. So everyone has the ownership.

Michel:

是的，这挺好的。

Yeah, that’s good.

Q:

Michel能否为我们解释一下“Commoning”这个术语？（备选的翻译方式有：1. 资源共理 2. 互助自理 3. 共造 4. 共有化 5. 共享化 6. 共有过程 7. 共同化）

Can Michel give us some explanation for the term ‘Commoning’?

Michel: 

最初，Commons被视为一种资源，像一个物体，对吧？特别是在新自由主义思想中，像Samuel Nelson这样的人，他将共有资源非常具体化——它是公共物品，必须是非竞争性的，你不能阻止对它的访问。

Originally the commons was seen as like a resource, like an object, right? Especially in neoliberal thinking, like Samuel Nelson, he puts the commons very specific—It's the public good, which has to be non-rival and you can't stop access to it. So originally, the idea was the commons is a resource. 

但现在理解已经演变为，它既是资源，也是创造、维护和保护它的人群，以及它的自我治理。所以它有不同的方面。所以有一个叫Peter Linebaugh的人说，“没有Commoning就没有Commons”。所以它真正强调的是这是人类的选择，因为有些人认为一些东西天生是公共的，一些东西天生是私有的。实际上，今天的论点是“这是一个选择”。你可以把汽车作为公共物品，它不一定是私有的；你可以把它私有化。住房可以是私有的、公共的或共有的。这是关于如何治理资源的人为选择。你不能只强调Commons是一种资源。它是一种属于集体的资源和治理行动，与国家与市场区分开来。这就是“Commoning”的含义。它强调了其中的主动部分。

But the understanding has evolved to be meaning, it's the resource; it's the group of people who act to create, maintain, and protect it; it's the self-governance of it. So it has different aspects. So there is a guy called Peter Linebaugh., who says ‘there is no commons without commoning’. So it’s really stressing that it's a human choice, because some people think some things are naturally common, some things are naturally private. Actually, today the argument is ‘it's a choice’. You can have cars as a common if you want. It doesn't have to be private; you can do it private. And housing can be private, public and commons. It's really a human choice about how to govern a resource. You cannot just say that commons is a resource. It's the resource and the that is collective governance action, to distinguish it from the state and the market. So that's what is by commoning. It stresses the active part of it.

这也并不意味着共有资源不是一个“东西”。一些像Antonio Negri这样的人，认为Commons就是任何非新自由主义的东西，让它变得非常形而上学。这并不精准。所以我认为同时强调这三件事很重要：它是一个资源；它是维护资源的行动，以及执行这些行动的社区；它也是自我治理的能力。只有当这三者结合在一起时，你才能真正谈论共有资源。

That doesn't mean it's not a thing as well. Because then if you don't think it's a thing, then you have people like Antonio Negri and all these people. It becomes very metaphysical, like the commons is anything that's not neoliberal. That's not very precise. So I think it's important to stress the three things at the same time. It's a resource. It's the action to maintain the resource, the community that does it. And then it's also the capacity for self-governance. It's only when those three things are together that you can truly talk about the commons. 

所以人们也会说“水是共有资源”或“空气是共有资源”。我们不同意这种说法，因为我们没有以共有资源的方式治理它，人们可以随意污染它而不受任何后果。Ostrom区分了开放访问的资源（每个人都可以使用，也可以破坏）和实际受到保护的共有资源。有一个活跃的社区在保护，这才使它成为共有资源。而不是仅仅因为每个人都可以使用它。

So people also use like ‘water is a commons’ or ‘the air is a commons. We disagree with this because we are not governing it as a commons, people are polluting it freely without consequences. Ostrom distinguishes open access resources, which everybody can use, we can also destroy. And then commons which are actually protected. There's an active community protecting the resource that makes it the commons. Not the fact that everybody can use it.

7k: 

在“Commoning”的翻译中，我们有很多选择，但可以主要关注第一个（资源共理）和第四个（资源共有化）。第一个更多是关于治理，第四个更多是关于所有权。同样的情况也发生在“Commons”上。在中文里，很难用一个简短的词来表达既有治理又有所有权的含义。似乎它们必须分开？所以如果Michel必须选择，你更喜欢哪个？所有权还是治理，哪个更重要？

Here with commoning, there's a lot of choices but we can stick to the first (资源共理) and the 4th (共有化). The first one is like more about the governance. The 4th one is more about the ownership. And the same thing happens to commons. In Chinese, it's hard to put it into a really brief word and say there’s both governance and ownership. It has to be separated. Right? So if you have to choose which one you prefer? Ownership or governance, which one is more important?

Michel: 

我会说治理更重要，因为所有权可以是非所有权。它可以是非支配性的，仍然可以是共有资源。比如某些东西不属于任何人，实际上仍然可以是共有资源，他在法律形式上不一定是被拥有的。财产不如他们共同保护、实际治理这一资源的事实重要。决定如何对待它比它的法律财产形式更重要。

I would say governance, because ownership, it can be non-ownership. It can be non-dominion, would still be a commons. Like something doesn't belong to anybody, would actually still be a commons. So the legal form doesn't have to be property. So property is less important than the fact that they are commonly protected, that they are actually governing that resource. Make decisions about how to treat it is more important than the legal property format.

7k: 

那么相应地，我们是否需要改变“Commons”（共有资源）的翻译？

So correspondingly, do we have to do change the translation for commons (共有资源)? 

Michel: 

我认为当你把它看作一个“东西”时，这个翻译其实很好。

I think that's when you look at it as a thing. I think that's actually good.

Who we are 👇

706M-Lab翻译小组
706媒体实验室的自组织翻译实验项目，由在网络上聚集起来的对等者一起进行p2p式的翻译协作，探索Web3时代的翻译出版新形态。
Uncommons
区块链世界内一隅公共空间，一群公共物品建设者，在此碰撞加密人文思想。其前身为 GreenPill 中文社区。
Twitter: x.com/Un__commons
Newsletter: blog.uncommons.cc/
Join us: t.me/theuncommons