The Enclosure of the Commons and the War Economy: A Feminist and Anti-Colonial Critique
Caitlin Hoyland
The commons refers to shared cultural and natural resources—such as air, water, and land—that are accessible to and protected by all members of a community. More than just a collection of resources, the commons represents a foundational model for organizing social and economic life through collective care, mutual responsibility, and sustainable stewardship. For millennia, this model has sustained communities, fostering systems rooted in cooperation rather than competition. However, over the last several centuries, the commons have been eroded by the forces of privatization, militarization, and capitalist expansion. The prevailing war economy—a system driven by conquest, territorial control, and profit accumulation—relies on the enclosure of the commons to commodify nature and generate private wealth. This process not only extracts resources but also fractures the social fabric of communities, replacing cooperation with competition and shared care with exclusion.
In early medieval Europe, common lands were essential to rural survival, providing communities with access to firewood, grazing grounds, and fresh water. These resources were collectively managed and governed according to local customs. However, as feudalism took hold and Europe’s imperial ambitions grew, the commons came under increasing threat. The rise of centralized states and expanding militarized economies led to the systematic enclosure and privatization of communal resources. The English Enclosure Movement of the 16th century epitomized this shift, as vast tracts of common land were transformed into private property, syphoning wealth to a minority of elites while permanently dispossessing local populations.
The enclosure of the commons was not confined to Europe—it became a global strategy of domination central to the colonization of Africa and the Americas. In many African societies, values such as hospitality, generosity, and mutual care were foundational to communal life. These principles, which prioritized collective well-being over individual accumulation, were misinterpreted by European colonizers as signs of weakness or inferiority. African societies, rich in both ecological and cultural commons, welcomed outsiders with openness. Tragically, this openness facilitated the exploitation and domination that followed. What was internally regarded as strength—cooperative governance, shared land use, and respect for life—was seen by European colonialists as an opportunity to assert control and extract resources. The same colonial logic that drove enclosure in Europe was exported globally through conquest, slavery, and resource extraction.
By 1601, European powers had already begun formalizing capitalist structures, such as the establishment of the Dutch East India Company and the world’s first stock exchange. These institutions laid the foundation for extractive economies built on enclosure, commodification, and profit maximization. While African societies operated according to systems that emphasized balance and reciprocity, Europe was rapidly transforming its economic and social systems to prioritize accumulation. As European imperial powers expanded, they extracted resources and labour from Africa to build the wealth of Europe. In it’s most brutal form, this includes the Transatlantic Slave Trade.
This colonial enclosure of the commons mirrored and expanded the processes already unfolding in Europe. The commons in Africa—land, water, forests, and knowledge—were systematically privatized and militarized. European powers imposed borders, introduced cash crops, and redirected natural resources away from local communities toward imperial markets. As in Europe, women bore the brunt of this transformation. The disruption of communal life and the commodification of land and labor undermined the roles African women held as traditional resource managers and healers. The colonial war economy extended its reach into the heart of African communal life, erasing systems of care and governance that had sustained societies for generations.
Feminist scholars have been at the forefront of exploring the gendered dimensions of the commons and highlighting how its destruction disproportionately impacts women. Thinkers like Silvia Federici, Maria Mies, Vandana Shiva, and Ruthie Wilson Gilmore have illuminated that the commons is not only a material struggle but a profound challenge to patriarchal, capitalist, and colonial systems. Their work underscores the commons as a social and political structure that fosters collective care, solidarity, and equitable governance—not merely as a set of resources to be exploited.
This process of enclosure, driven by the war economy, is central to their critique. As Silvia Federici argues in Caliban and the Witch (2004), enclosures were not simply an economic transformation—they were a key part of the shift toward capitalist social relations. Federici contends that the enclosures were deeply entwined with the creation of a new gendered division of labor, in which women’s roles in communal land management were progressively diminished. She emphasizes that the enclosure of the commons was not only a process of dispossession but one that disproportionately affected women, especially in rural and agricultural communities. Federici writes, "The destruction of communal land was also the destruction of a social order in which women had some degree of autonomy and control over their labor and reproductive capacity" (Federici, 2004, p. 95). As common lands were privatized, women found themselves excluded from decision-making, their labor increasingly confined to the household and market economy, further reinforcing their subjugation.
Similarly, Maria Mies, a feminist economist and ecofeminist, expands on the connection between the commons and the war economy in her influential work Ecofeminism (1993). Mies argues that the commodification of land, resources, and women’s labor is inseparable from the logic of the war economy. She demonstrates how the appropriation of women’s labor parallels the appropriation of land and natural resources, saying that "the commodification of resources is not just a matter of economics but of power, based on the appropriation of the surplus value of women’s labor, just as it is based on the appropriation of the surplus value of the land, nature, and human labor in general" (Mies, 1993, p. 108). For women, particularly in rural areas or the Global South, these dynamics result in the undermining of their roles in resource management and community-building.
As both Mies and Federici argue, the fight for the commons is ultimately a struggle for social justice, one in which gender dynamics are central. Women, particularly in rural and Indigenous communities, have historically been the stewards of the commons, ensuring its sustainability. Yet, as the war economy has advanced, these communities have been marginalized, and their contributions erased or ignored. The destruction of the commons is not merely an economic or environmental crisis, but is instead deeply rooted in power structures that disproportionately impact women and other marginalized groups.
Vandana Shiva, a prominent figure in the global struggle for the commons, has extensively written about the consequences of privatizing natural resources—especially water, seeds, and biodiversity—and its gendered impact. In Water Wars (2002), Shiva highlights how the commodification of water affects women in rural communities, who are often tasked with water collection. She writes, "Water is life, but in the hands of corporations, water becomes a commodity, a profit-making tool" (Shiva, 2002, p. 15). Shiva’s work emphasizes that resource privatization is not only an ecological issue but also a deeply gendered one. Since women, particularly in rural areas, often shoulder the responsibility for managing natural resources, the privatization of essential resources like water exacerbates their labor, restricts their access, and increases their vulnerability.
These feminist perspectives are crucial to understanding the role of the commons in the modern era. The commons, as these scholars argue, represent an alternative to the war economy—a vision of collective governance, shared resources, and ecological sustainability that challenges profit-driven accumulation and militarization. In this light, the commons are not just a set of resources—they represent a potential way of life, one that nurtures solidarity, sustainability, and justice.
The efforts of Indigenous groups to reclaim their lands echo these feminist critiques. For example, the Penobscot Nation’s successful reclamation of over 30,000 acres of their ancestral territory along the Penobscot River is both an environmental victory and a reclaiming of sovereignty that disrupts centuries of colonial control. Such movements are not simply about land—they are about restoring cultural heritage, reversing the erasure of Indigenous women’s leadership in resource management, and dismantling the patriarchal, colonial systems that have perpetuated violence against both land and people (Maine Public, 2023). These reclamation efforts serve as a powerful example of how landback movements align with feminist perspectives by challenging gendered power dynamics within both Indigenous and broader societal contexts.
These feminist perspectives, combined with the powerful examples of Indigenous-led landback movements, highlight the importance of the commons in contemporary struggles for justice. As Mies, Federici, and Shiva argue, the commons represent more than just a system of shared resources—it is a vision of collective governance, ecological sustainability, and solidarity that challenges the exploitative logic of profit-driven accumulation. The commons are not just a set of resources; they are a potential way of life—one that fosters sustainability, justice, and equity for all, particularly for those who have long been marginalized.
In his work, David Bollier has expanded on the potential of the commons to serve as a model for building a peace economy—one that transcends the war economy and prioritizes cooperation over conflict, sustainability over exploitation. Bollier’s extensive research on the commons focuses on the importance of collective governance and shared decision-making in maintaining common resources. In his book The Wealth of the Commons (2012), Bollier explores numerous examples of commons-based initiatives, ranging from traditional farming practices to modern digital commons, illustrating the diversity and resilience of commons-oriented systems. Bollier argues that the commons offer a compelling alternative to both the war economy and the neoliberal market economy. He writes, “The commons is not simply about resource management. It is about transforming social relationships and rebuilding the bonds of trust, solidarity, and mutual care” (Bollier, 2012, p. 17).
For Bollier, the commons are about creating a new kind of relationship with the world: one that is grounded in reciprocity, cooperation, and shared responsibility. His work on the commons challenges the war economy’s emphasis on militarized control and resource extraction, offering instead a model of governance that emphasizes collaboration and community. This vision is aligned with feminist perspectives on the commons, which is grounded by the importance of care, solidarity, and the equitable distribution of resources. Bollier also explains that the commons can serve as a counterforce to the profit-driven violence of the war economy, advocating for systems of governance that prioritize human dignity, ecological balance, and collective well-being. Bollier's Think Like a Commoner (2014) further develops these themes, focusing on how the commons can be a model for creating a peace economy. Bollier draws attention to the importance of protecting the commons from privatization and exploitation, arguing that commons-based systems offer a path toward social and ecological justice. He contends that the commons provide an alternative to the war economy by emphasizing collective responsibility, sustainable practices, and democratic governance. He writes, “The commons is a way of thinking about the world, a way of organizing life that stands in direct opposition to the war economy’s individualism, militarization, and resource extraction” (Bollier, 2014, p. 95). This vision of the commons as a social and relational process is one that resonates with feminist thinkers, who have long emphasized the importance of solidarity, mutual care, and democratic governance in sustaining the commons.
Ultimately, the commons represent a transformative space where resistance to the war economy can take shape. By reclaiming the commons, we can build a world based on cooperation, ecological stewardship, and social justice. The commons challenge the logic of exploitation and the war economy’s prioritization of militarization and violence, offering instead a vision of collective well-being, sustainability, and care. Feminist scholars have been central in the campaign for protecting the commons, showing how the destruction of the commons disproportionately affects women, particularly in rural and Indigenous communities, and highlighting the gendered dimensions of resource privatization.
Caitlin Hoyland (she/her) is a writer and human rights advocate currently interning with CODEPINK’s Peace Economy program. She holds a First Class Honours degree in History and Politics from the University of Warwick and has written extensively on issues related to conflict, displacement, and social justice. Her work has appeared in publications such as E-International Relations, Decolonial Thoughts, and Europinion. Alongside her writing, Caitlin provides frontline support to survivors of trafficking in the UK and conducts legal research into asylum systems across Europe. She is passionate about feminist foreign policy, decolonial advocacy, and building sustainable peace through community-led action.
This is an excellent piece. Could I trouble you to include the references cited within the text?