Slashdot Mirror
The Next Social Revolution?
Cryofan writes "In a recent interview, Howard Rheingold (author of Smart Mobs) discussed the possibility of a 'new economic system' born of 'unconscious cooperation' embodied by such technologies as Google links and Amazon lists, Wikipedia, wireless devices using unlicensed spectrum, Web logs, and open-source software. Rheingold speculates that 'the technology of the Internet, reputation systems, online communities, mobile devices...may make some new economic system possible....We had markets, then we had capitalism, and socialism was a reaction to industrial-era capitalism. There's been an assumption that since communism failed, capitalism is triumphant, therefore humans have stopped evolving new systems for economic production.' However, Rheingold is worried that established companies with business models that are threatened by these new technologies could 'quash such nascent innovations as file-sharing -- and potentially put the U.S. at risk of falling behind the rest of the world.'"
...but doing so would probably sentence me to a diagnosis of mentally insane.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Rheingold is worried that established companies with business models that are threatened by these new technologies could 'quash such nascent
innovations as file-sharing
Don't worry, they can only manage this for a very short period of time. They're all ice vendors in the age of the fridge, and it's not a rut that they can simply step out of. They're in the wrong business entirely - technology doesn't just stand aside when a few vested interests complain to Capitol Hill.
Are you saying the giant corporations might do something that's not in the interest of the public good?
__________
[Big Brick Wall]
I can't think of anywhere where they had communism. I mean, some places *said* they were communists, but Hitler also called himself a christian.
A recent thought of the moment entry that is related to this.
our new longwinded summary overlords....
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
Stopping file sharing will make the US fall behind? By definition file sharing would be pointless if the US wasn't so anal about copyrights and IP. You have mass file sharing because of the US. The US will crumble without file sharing???... how the heck did this guy make that connection? Someone please enlighten me... I'm not following the logic.
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
What's this term "social" you speak up?
Anyone who thinks that human beings are going to work together for the common good, especially in an economics setting, has been smoking too much weed. We don't even have a FAIR capitalistic society yet.
Besides it's one thing to say that new forms of economics should be created, but it's quite another to go out and create that system. And even then, who is to say it won't be too idealistic, or just plain ineffective (communism, etc.)?
"Unconscious cooperation" sounds a lot like a date rapist's desperate last defence.
The process of evolution is never ending. Some ideas get recycled in a modified form. Look at barter: the trading of goods or services, for goods or services. Has anyone fixed someones computer in exchange for something? Thats how I got my current office chair.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Oh my, a 'new economy' based on 'unconscious cooperation'. My, that sounds like Capitalism.
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
Maybe they can someday make a mob of editors smart enough to spot dupes on slashdot....
It's called the FREE MARKET, people!
The Philosophy of Liberty | lewrockwell.com
Maybe I just think in global terms, but I've never really cared too much if the US is ahead of the world in everything. I'm a Californian, but my wife is Dutch so maybe that's why. I guess we are still mobile enough to move around to different countries (no kids, don't buy tons of crap to cart around) too.
I always read about the US "falling behind" like it's such a tragedy and I really can't get all worked up about it.
"Unconscious cooperation?" Why, it's almost as if it's being guided by...an "invisible hand!"
Go filesharing!
I beleve the logical conclusion idealogically speaking is - we all do everything for free. I mean P2P this, open source that in order to accomplish whatever ends -- this only works if the ends is worth the working for free which it aint. Might be faulty reasoning on my part -- only half thinking this out
Rheingold is worried that established companies with business models that are threatened by these new technologies could 'quash such nascent innovations as file-sharing -- and potentially put the U.S. at risk of falling behind the rest of the world.'
The easy solution? Make the rest of the world quash innovations such as file-sharing too.
(Sadly, this seems to be too common the attitude, and seems to work somewhat...)
but human nature doesn't...at least not as quickly
...evolving new economic systems. Our personal timeline is simply too short too see it all. Granted, the time between different systems emerging and becoming successful/dominant may be shorter (as is everything else), but it is evolving.
These things take time.
I like to think a global network mesh could enable something like Orson Scott Card's citizens net; government, and economics would fall squarely in the hands of the people. For this to happen, we need proper education and corporations have done a fine job of turning schools into factories for worker bees and obedient consumers. In the truest form of capitalism, information flows freely.
Of course, we all know too many examples how our modern economic incarnation of "capitalism" works hard to restrict knowledge through "proper" channels and limit competition. It may take a while, but I think as the costs of communication continue to fall, we may see some effort towards creating alternative economies within the superstructure of global capitalism. Just a little rant . . . I'd be happy to clarify any questions you all may have.
And here's another link that contains sentiments similar to nooron: The Bootstrap Institute
harmonious design
We could get into a long discussion about how the US patent model conflicts with the EU patent model, and how perhaps they are starting to merge together depending on what you believe, and that would probably turn into a flamefest. The point that he is trying to make is that if there is going to be some sort of technogically-inspired shift in social matters beyond the kind of thing we see now, that having goverenments interfere will ultimately be useless and only slow progress (falling behind so to say instead of stopping completely). He explains further:
So I would guess that his message is to let the technology happen and adapt.
Slashdot in 5 Paragraphs
Since governments protect property rights they should tax net assets. They don't. They shift the burden of protection costs off on to soldiers who die in wars who protect the property rights and onto productive people via income, gains, value added and sales taxes.
Seastead this.
Something for nothing, repackaged, presented with a modern twist.
What he is describing is capitalism, specifically, free market capitalism.
The free market *is* the endpoint of all economic systems. Even with communism and socialism, it is underneath fighting to get out.. which is why communism and socialism always fail.
Free software *looks* like altruistic cooperation, but it's really just the result of extremely low costs of distribution. The internet and "agents" just lower transaction costs. It all fits fine with capitalism and markets, just like I studied in college.
Someday, people (on all sides of the issue) will figure this out.. the internet and free software and so forth aren't anything *new* they just take a few knobs and crank them toward zero.
I also got the distinct feeling he visited Slashdot once and got this idea, without sticking around to see how it doesn't work sometimes. (GNAA, I'm looking in your direction...)
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
The capitalist system, at least here in the U.S., is firmly in place.
The internet, in addition to other new technologies, only aid the consumer mentality that has become so prevalent. Has he not seen a newspaper of a TV? They're filled with ads, and, for the most part, people don't mind: they want to know about the latest and greatest new product; they want to know what hip new clothes they ought to be wearing; they have to know how to formulate their images.
Companies will identify the problem and address it. The internet is a valuable marketing tool, a fact they'll surely figure out (though most already have).
An effective signature identifies a particular user amongst a base of thousands.
I respect Howard Rheingold as a technology writer, but can he at least give some props and credit to digital anarchists and hacktivists who have been writing about these ideas for years?
By the way, the next economic system will be the participatory economics of anarchism. Capitalism is unsustainable. Not only are its days are numbered, but billions around the world want something better and more fair.
Chuck0
http://www.infoshop.org
All of this unconscious cooperation and everything else all these futurists and others are talking about are straight from star trek. How will it turn out though? Will we be like the borg or like the federation. I guess it all depends how we get there.
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
Rheingold is worried that established companies with business models that are threatened by these new technologies could 'quash such nascent innovations as file-sharing -- and potentially put the U.S. at risk of falling behind the rest of the world.'
Yeah, we have to catch up to China in terms of spam and pirating. That's the future. Hell, 200 babies died there because some idiot pirated a baby formula brand.
Table-ized A.I.
Ahh... memory lane.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
This interview is especially interesting because it outlines some specifics about HOW this can proceed, using technology as a tool to force social progress. Hopefully governments won't start fucking with things to protect their client corporations and realise that everyone needs to adapt. Otherwise they might as well be full-blown communists.
Slashdot in 5 Paragraphs
Any economic system that required the human race to become less greedy and selfish will ultimately fail. Human beings by definition are greedy, it's only the the extent of the individuals' greed that varies.
This is why Communism has for the most part failed. Any Communist regime has to account for that. The USSR tried to squash greed by keeping the populace isolated from the rest of the world - you can't want what you don't know exists- but information leaked into the country and the people wanted what the rest of the world had. China has succeded to a certain extent, but they stop greed by the brutal repression of the people.
One final thought, any attempt at a new economy will have to survive the leaders of the current economy (governments and the rich and powerful)trying to subvert it for their own profit.
So open source and open content and what media companies call "piracy" is actively destroying the distribution systems in paces for software and media. It's inevitable, Agent Smith. It's entropy. The "mob" ain't gonna settle for being controlled.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
I work for a large and very dominate bio-medical company. One of our products is flow-cytometers. They are used in looking at the relative size, complexity and antibodies a cell possesses. They use lasers, Photo Multiplier tubes,fairly complex electronics and reagents to do this.
Most of the data and techniques that are used are shared by our customers at Purdue
Of course universities are more likely to share data than our pharmaceutical customers but that is to be expected and they do share some data mainly in regards to techniques. Our customers have also started forming user groups and organizing conferences. Because of this format stem cell research, mapping of the human genome, and progress fighting aids and cancer has quickened. I am pretty excited to be a part of it all we even have some custom products that allow our customers to look at bacteria!(much smaller than cells).
What is even more exciting is that our latest generation of instruments are being purchased by people who have never used them before(yay profit!) and are in completely different fields. I always make sure to point them to purdue so even more data can be shared.
Over all I am very optimistic about these developments. In the next 5-10 years I would not be surprised to see major develpments if not cures in all immune system related fields.
"To Err is Human To Forgive is Divine neither of which is Marine Corp Policy"-My SNCOIC
In a network, there are two basic elements: nodes and links.
A social network is the same; there are individual and there are relationships.
What Rheingold is identifying are logical domains within the set of people-relationships elements. In a social network, a domain is an attribute shared by many nodes (individuals). These nodes are then linked in a losely manner so that they don't know they are related, but they are. For example, some people read and react to the same news articles (local, state or national newspaper - participating in corresponding local, state or national trends), the same blogs, the same books, they buy the same technology, they download the same software, the same MP3, they share and exchange ideas and influence without being conscious about it, this is what Rheingold calls "unconscious cooperation". The typical idea of a flock - nobody is driving, but the flock (the logical domain) is acting coherently, without the individual being fully aware of their participation to the group - this reminds me vaguely Theillard de Chardin's Noosphere idea...).
Mobs (the subject of his previous book) is just a subset of this. Nothing really new there, just that he extends his Smart Mobs concept beyong wireless mobility, to other human activities.
Rheingold is worried that established companies with business models that are threatened by these new technologies could 'quash such nascent innovations as file-sharing -- and potentially put the U.S. at risk of falling behind the rest of the world.'"
Since it looks like the only way to do the quashing is through the courts, doesn't that make it a government-managed economy? Only now, instead of "the people's" will, it's "the companies' will". No matter, it's still a club to beat people up with.
Meet the new Communism, [amost the] same as the old Communism.
No.
and perhaps only 10-15% have every used the www. For the forseeable future most social interactions will happen how they happened 50 or 100 years ago. People sitting around and talking, people walking and talking,...
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Seems like Mr Rheingold has been reading a little too much of the good Mr. Doctorows work.
The whole problem with other alternative systems, respect based, communism, or whatever is the simple fact that they require people to be better than they are. Unfortunately people are rotten in general. The typical person can convince themselves that any and all action they take is of the highest order. The current election where both parties seem to have betrayed every principle they espouse is a good example.
Untill you have a literally unlimited production capacity, there will always be incentive for people to take the other guys. If for nothing else people will take yours just to deprive you of having it. As long as their is shortage of desirable goods it doesn't matter wheather you call the currency the Dollar, ruble or the respect unit, the system will wind up looking rather similar.
If you would like to see society get better figure out how to make people a little less rotten.
Communism didnt work because people are flat out lazy and greedy. Throughout time, the US and other big countries will lead into this socialism/communism and capitalism will gradually play less of a role as things become more and more mechanized, especially farming. People didnt want to grow crops for the common good, but electricity doesnt seem to care. OSS works because the maker of the software doesnt have to remake it for everyone who wants the software, computers can simply copy it, and not everyone has to contribute; the OSS is meant to be abused by average users with the few who feel they should/want to make something for the common good. If power becomes less of an issue (fusion power obviously), and the few ppl (scientists, related to the people who make open software) will design something (farming or productive robots) for the average lazy user. Communism required too much from the average user.
The problem is that humans are basically obsoleting themselves.
There will come a time (maybe in my lifetime. I'm 23) where technology is such, that humans as a race won't have to work. As farfetched as they seem now, things like the food-replicators from StarTrek will eventually be feasible. Why should I work when I can just press a button for food?
Earth would essentially become a zoo where humans are free to do as they wish. Robots and machines would look after basic needs for us. Shelter, food, water etc... It would allow humans to focus on other things such as bettering themselves and learning new things, instead of having to work to pay the bills.
Granted, the above scenario would require a cultural change on a global scale, and there will be many people that would fight tooth-and-nail against it. The people that fight it would be those that stand to lose the most. (The rich and powerful).
It would also bring up new issues such as birth control. Nature normally takes care of the population through mechanisms like scarcity and disease. With those two issues removed, humans would have self-regulate so as to not cover every square inch of the planet with people.
Obviously this is one of many possible futures for the human race. (We could blow the planet to hell tomorrow if we wanted). Still, these certainly are interesting times to be alive.
Industrial capitalism: Presence of corporations, legal "people" with unlimited liability protected by the State. Phony "free trade agreements" and "free trade organizations" which are nothing more than protection of businesses. Strict intellectual property laws. This is what we have in America.
Free-market capitalism: What this guy is describing. No corporations, true free trade (meaning the absence of subsidies, tariffs, embargoes, outsourcing bans, and other restrictions, NOT by agreements or organizations, but by lack of laws.) Whether there is intellectual property or not is debatable. I don't think that this has ever been fully put into practice.
My, that sounds like Capitalism.
Remember, "Capitalism" is marxist - or at least Sombartic - rhetoric.
To the extent that we "believe" in anything, we don't believe in "Capitalism" - rather, we believe in freedom, which necessarily presupposes the existence of private property rights.
However, to equate freedom with something so vulgar as the ownership of a spinning machine, a steam engine, or a plow, is to lose the battle over language [ipso facto the underlying ideological war itself].
Hell, I'll go you one step further: To the extent that we "believe" in anything, it's not that we believe in "freedom," but that we believe in opposition to tyranny [which is precisely what the marxists would impose upon us].
And their tyranny begins with the corruption and nullification of language [as a vehicle for describing the truth].
... potentially put the U.S. at risk of falling behind the rest of the world
Not going to happen - because the US will just swallow up (read: US-Australia Free Trade Agreement) anything that seems to be creeping ahead, thus quashing these technologies in other parts of the world as well.
But the idea of the interview is not that people is willing to work together for the commong good. The idea is that people is actually doing what is better for them, and by doing that, they are uncounciusly working for the common good - ie: P2P networks.
Totally off-topic, but... Bagged ice is readily available in Canada, which would, you'd think, have plenty of the stuff already. And here in Singapore, where the temperature is 80-100F all year round, it comes in pretty handy.
There's been an assumption that since communism failed, capitalism is triumphant, therefore humans have stopped evolving new systems for economic production
This is absolutely right. Now, every new innovation to our way of life is evaluated on its relationship to money making. As long as we allow power to people who continue to consider OSS, the Internet and file-sharing in terms of capital and business in its current form, the potential of these developments for making a new and different world - one not built on the old system of capitalism and one bringing real freedom - will be wasted. I think the world is at a crossroads - either it will harden into corporate monarchies and stay that way forever or it will, in coming years, see the failure of the status quo and new governments with new values take the lead.
oh please. demands do not constitute exceptions to economics. economies only follow demand; demands for 'more openness' or some such acquiessences are merely facets of demand.
in some regards, i must confess: consumers are the criminals, not the corporates. "we give you only what you demand," is true (as with all things to some extent). witness: english food.
frankly most people are too ignorant to know how crude most of their technological marvels really are under the skin. this holds for most every example, from spectrum usage to google, amazon to "On Demand"/Psuedo-Reality-Tv media blogging. if we knew better we'd demand better. the populous takes the first real network externality handed to them and the captialist process churns on that for as long as it can before its forced to innovate.
the author is trying to propose that somehow these technical marvells will grease the wheels of beurocracy and perhaps promote a more liberal unburdened innovative economy. which is rediculous. patent length, 20 years will be the defining mark of technological progress. someone came along and nailed a paper to the wall that said innovation was good for 20 years, after that, unto the world. that point defines a societal value between the shifting sliding values of innovation/progress, and personal wealth/fame.
Read this and understand - the world will be a better place!
Who is John Galt?
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Let's watch the "normal" part. At the center (not right or left) of most religions, people are fairly decent to one another. To hopefully douse the imenent flames:
The same can be said of all far-right/left people. Christian/Moslim/Jewish/Davidian/Religion X zealots have killed millions of people who didn't agree with them. The Romans did it, the Greeks did it. Every society in the history of the world has gotten rid of pesky infidels. Not just Christians or Moslims, but EVERYBODY!
Something to remember...
The sad thing is that it is this attitude that allows oppressive or out-of-control governments gain/maintain power.
Government loves sheep.
If people were more cooperative, like ants or dogs perhaps, communism would work fine.
emt 377 emt 4
And explain why we should use your definition while you're at it.
Communism must come from the will of the people, not of a ruling elite. Otherwise it will just be a "state capitalism", and that is the case with the so called "communist states" of today. It's all just one giant evil of an megacorporation. Both the so called "communist states" and corporations are: hierarchical, authoritarian, oppressive and exploitative. There is no democracy in either, and the elite that "owns" the "property" calls the shots.
freeing china is like trying to convince the usa fedgovt to legalize pot and give it out free at every sunday church group/gathering. Its not gona happen, you cant change a group of 30 peoples mind let alone 1.3 billion over night, these things take time.
If you ever lived in china for more than a few months you will realise that dropping the govt control on information would yield to total utter civil war and people going nutso. Besides china doesnt have enough roads/cars/electricity to handle 1.3 billion people living suburban style modern economy, you gota do it slowly, even at 15% growth it takes time
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Cooperation isn't a brand-new invention. People in the same family/tribe/nation work together. Scientists and academics have always shared their theories and papers.
The history of life on Earth is the story of a balance between cooperation and competition. 100% cooperation won't work, but 100% competition won't work either.
The internet and other technologies will see their mix of cooperation and competition, too.
Do you mean Microsoft? Oh wait thats cooperation without a conscious.
"Software is like sex... it's better when it's free"
This is Slashdot.. Think SHEEP not ants/dogs.
Greed is not the problem - greed is a pejorative word for self interest. Any system that does not recognize that all human (and most animal and plant) behavior is based on self-interest is doomed to failure.
And self-interest didn't succeed. Nature eventually and inevitably produced humans, and we continued act in self-interest but with more power, destroying ourselves and the world that created us. Essentially, nature's policy of self-interest is doomed eventually to destroy it. Nature's encouragement of greed/self-interest is now something that humanity, if it wants to survive, must overcome.
I just want to be left alone, to build for myself the comfortable end to my life. As far as I am concerned, anyone who would intrude on my person, property, or safety can die. It may be government taxes, forceful religion, dominant coroprations, terrorist, etc. They are all the same, seeking to control that which is not thiers. My mind and my choices I shall not give up, nor shall I my freedom.
This is sounding like a new way to pass the buck. At the same time, there are far more social implications to these technologies.
What geeks saw in the 80's. College students saw in the early 90s, and what the entire world is waking up to now is that by changing the extent of a single persons ability to communicate, we have a much larger base population for any one society.
It is interesting to note that while large corperations are throwing money at ways to resist economic change, governments and traditional cultures are also trying to resist a "global" society by protecting viewpoints,certain sentimentalities,and cultural identification. Are we seeing a unilateral changes in social-political power structures as well as economic systems?
My $.02, but I think I have change coming.
Kei
Any 'new' such system will be a garnish of either socialism, capitalism or communism. Move along, no revolutions here.
This is my sig. There are thousands more, but this one is mine.
Internet piracy kills babies
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
That's absurd. You could have said the same about computers in the 1940's, or moon landings in the 1950's. There has never been a genuine, popular attempt to institute real communism or Marxism to this day. That doesn't mean anything about its viability.
I mean, how many pure capitalisms are there? It takes time to develop an economic system, because humans are imperfect. Socialist utopias are no more reasonable than capitalist utopias; however, they're both equally damaged by imperfect man. Frankly, I think pure socialism's need for universal altruism is more realistic than the insanely unlikely perfect balance that pure capitalism requires.
You can't point to the Cold War and call it the triumph of capitalism over socialism. The United States is not anywhere near pure capitalism, and Soviet Russia was not anywhere near pure socialism. The Cold War was the triumph of liberal government over authoritarianism, and that's all it was.
Congratulations, Howard, you're discovered free markets. Self-organizing, self-optimizing.
Best of all, gussy it up with some techie-speak and no one will ever notice you're repeating one of the best sellers of '76.
1776.
When people were arguing if a government should controll all the information, the the question of wether anyone should controll any of it could never even be discueesd.
Now it's the issue under discussion.
Communism must come from the will of the people, not of a ruling elite. Otherwise it will just be a "state capitalism", and that is the case with the so called "communist states" of today. It's all just one giant evil of an megacorporation. Both the so called "communist states" and corporations are: hierarchical, authoritarian, oppressive and exploitative. There is no democracy in either, and the elite that "owns" the "property" calls the shots.
And that sounds like a lame apology for a borked up economic system that's based upon the utterly incorrect assumption that economics is a zero-sum game - the only way to get ahead is to take or to suppress someone else. And that's utter bullshit.
Today I've fixed 2 computer instances in class, one of a Novell Login script problem, and the next with bi-directional support for a Lexmark printer turned off. As far as I can see, I'm the ONLY person who knows how to fix all of the Novell login problems at school and basic hardware/software failures at school. Technologically, most computers in classrooms are Pentium II and 500MHz P III at best, and in the labs we have 1.7GHz P4 machines. All are Dells and Compaqs, and I must say, nobody knows how to use a computer to the point of trouble shooting in school other than myself and my math teacher. My Computer Science teacher knows quite a bit, but I've been called out of class still to fix administrative printer failures... I am a hacker, a social engineer, I have the administrator passwords throughout the school. Is there a problem with this? The fact that students must operate a school? Why are there no teachers that can fix a printer? Why are there no technicians at school? I goto school to learn, but for 3 hours a day, I'm fair game for being sent off to perform tasks that could be performed with little seminars for faculty and students. For something's sake, I'm not profiting, I'm not going to get any recognition, I am a slave to the failing system of the new society.
Karma: Good, or bust!
[sigh] One of the things that drives me nuts about Randroids is the way they try to redefine perfectly good words to fit their own ends. (They remind me, in this as in a lot of ways, of Marxists. Actually.) "Greed" and "self-interest" do not have the same meaning; they are similar but distinct concepts, and everyone but fanatics understands this.
Greed: taking everything you can get your hands on.
Self-interest: acting in the way that most benefits you.
Is this too hard to understand?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Even small convenience stores sell it here. Never seen anyone buying it, but that's a different matter!
That creating intellectual property takes work, and time. If I am creating digital music I am putting my time and effort in to that, rather than other things. Thus if I wish to do it all the time, I must recieve compensation for it since I have physical needs.
The other side of the problem is people that assume that because there is no marginal cost in copying digital data, it shouldn't cost anything at all. Well, that's a problem. Those that create the data still need to eat, have a house, and so on. PHysical, limited production, needs. Thus they need to earn money, if they wish to ocntinue their persuit in a serious fashion.
So you have two choices. IF you want all IP to be free, that's fine, but then you basically religate it to the realm of spare-time projects. People work on it only if they feel like it, and only in time they have free. The other choice is what we have now, it can and does cost money, but because of that people invest full-time effort in it.
I'm not saying the way in which we currently charge for IP is the correct way, but if you want it to be anything but a hobby, there needs to be money invloved.
'unconscious cooperation'
Wouldn't it still be conscience since it's trying to, uhh, earn the most amount of money possible?
There's been an assumption that since communism failed, capitalism is triumphant
China isn't doing so badly. It seems most capitalistic societies are taking a more socialist turn - providing healhcare, welfare, education, etc. Seems capitalism sort of fused with the ideas of communism.
Rheingold is worried that established companies with business models that are threatened by these new technologies
Open source is superior to brand name any day. Linux > windows. Firefox > IE. However, the latter both dominate the market, but Linux and Mozilla still have their fair share. Open source is the only example of REAL capitalism - since it's based on rugged individualism and can compete with huge corperations. That being said, it also forces big companies to innovate their software. You can bet that IE 7 will closely resemble FireFox.
quash such nascent innovations as file-sharing -- and potentially put the U.S. at risk of falling behind the rest of the world.'"
That is a fairly valid assumption, however, file sharing seems to be as rampant as ever. Kazaa, Ares, Gnucleus, eMule... if you want it, it's out there.
Case in point, desire for profit still does give companies incentive to improve upon existing models. The best thing that has ever happened to big corperations was open source - free, creative innovations which they can utilize in their up and coming products. Most of it was way too technologically advanced for the average user (try and explain to your parents how and why you need a 3 partition drive to have Linux and Windows).
"In a Democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve." -Winston Churchill
Where do these ideas come from? How did you ever get it into your head that it is the outstanding consensus of the philosophical community that psychological egoism is successful? The case is nothing of the sort. Psychologial egoism is widely regarded within the philosophical community as a naive and failed ideaology.
Are there actually institutions of higher learning mandating the reading of that "objectivist" tripe?
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad people are thinking about these issues at any rate. But, you know, over the years I've become quite fond of the following hypothesis.
The naive psychological egoist is readily convinced of his unwarranted assertion of universal egoism, only because he himself is so thoroughly absorbed with his own.
It is only by your assertion of universal egoism - an elaborate coping mechanism - that you are able to rationalism your persistent anti-social motives, behaviors, and ideaologies.
The world is not the mirror of your subconscience, nor are you its prism.
Thank God.
-Anonymous
Something to remember...
...to not mod this down as flamebait.
But being good egoists, they can't help but do so...
So much for the freedom of ideas.
Communism must come from the will of the people, not of a ruling elite.
That may be true of Marxist Communism, but not all forms of Communism are so. Leninism states that "the proletariat can only achieve revolutionary consciousness through the efforts of a communist party that assumes the role of "revolutionary vanguard", although this view changed during the revolutions of 1905 and 1917."(Leninism)
The belief that so many hold that Marxism is the only true Communism is simply wrong. There are and were many forms of Communism and Socialism and all are legitimate.
no it's not just you. you jus know some romanian mafia type is shorting coke of those hot lil asses, while those little pixies cumswap in a circle. jus go look at yahoo "most popular" emailed pics and you'll see...the world loves young, female, athletic ass cheeks. tight, with lotsa grip. mouth-watering...perfect shelf for snorting lines.
AT&T's monopoly was dismembered.
Standard Oil's monopoly was dismembered.
The horrific child labor conditions of the Industrial Age were checked by laws.
Labor unions were established.
The weekend was created.
This is obviously not an exhaustive list, but the point is that business in the United States is not immune to pressure from the population at large. It just takes a lot of hard work and political activism to force change of any kind, and most Americans are for a variety of reasons singularly uninterested in exercising their political power.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
One subtext of this interview seems to be the inefficiency of capitalism, not in the Econ 101 sense of an "efficient market" but in the real sense of creating the most products or having the greatest impact, while using the least resources and selling at the lowest cost. The publishing economy (software, music, every type of media content) is very inefficient in real terms, with media companies still striving to make as much money off a given work as they did in the days when distributing copies was a physical process.
The fact that something like OpenOffice, for example, can be created and distributed without spending millions of dollars, is right out there for everybody to see. If the public eventually recognizes it, our long-held perception of the value of a copy of something might change, to the point where newer business models based on real costs are the only ones that will still work. Why should an industry exist to produce something that for all practical purposes grows on trees. The same goes for the recording industry. If bands can generate fame and get better performance gigs by distributing free copies of their songs, there's no need for them to sign away their rights to a record company.
One obvious way for the old gang to stop this evolution is to outlaw the means that will enable it. Like file sharing.
http://www.mircea.ca/robunny/gymnast/index.html
Romans were extremely tolerant concerning religion. This was true before they became Christians. The Roman Empire in all its glory was not Christian. It was ruined by Christianity!
Since it looks like the only way to do the quashing is through the courts, doesn't that make it a government-managed economy?
There are many resources a company can use to quash competition. Look at Microsoft's history of owning the PC distribution chain through *very* restrictive, secretive licensing deals with the major PC manufacturers. The market itself can be used against... the market.
Often, long-term benefits are impossible to attain (due to short-term massive negative cash flow while "bucking the system," for instance). So, a computer manufacturer will stick with Microsoft's very restrictive deals (which essentially disallow selling other operating systems, for one thing) rather than try to sell alternate operating systems on their computers.
Indelible Blue did all right with OS/2, and Penguin Computing seems to be successful with Linux; but these are niche players, with little chance to go up against HP or Dell.
The point is, the government is almost impotent to control the market. Most market controls are put their by players big enough to enforce the controls. This is the problem with a "free market" concept: if a market is left unregulated, the big players will become the regulators.
It doesn't get much better even when you have two big players: talk to alternative soda manufacturers. They can't compete with the Coke/Pepsi duopoly, as both Coke and Pepsi take time out from their own fighting to keep the little guys from getting good display positions in major retail chains, for instance.
I laugh big sorrowful tears every time I see a post slobbering all over the concept of "Free Market." There's no such thing. In a world where (money == power), those with the money have the power to regulate those with less money.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Charles Stross has a funny riff about this in his SF novel Accelerando, which is currently being serialized intermittently in Asimov's. The novel is coming out this year, I think. Entities running Economics 1.0 are strongly urged not to enter into any contracts with those running 2.0 :-)
Find free books.
...self-destructing. One thing that free markets are exceptionally bad at is maintaining a free market. Because for the individual player, a free market is a really uncomfortable place.
Ultimately the Illuminati will rule the world but to reach this goal they are creating a constant state of war filled with blood sacrifice.
Farfetched you say? Keep listening to late night radio and these events will be brought to fruition, probably by the brainwashed, who listen to too much late night radio.
There are rumors of the coming of the antichrist, who is described as speaking all languages and bringing solutions to mankind's problems.
So you say capitalism will triumph? How about a deepening of the ice age or the increased heat of the sun followed much later by its death?
Closer to home, I guess it's all up to the whims of the government. Lies and corruption in government and business make us worry about any kind of social direction. A greater connectedness of the Internet and wireless gadgets brings more ability to produce as well as more chances to be victimized. It's going to be fun times.
My suggestion: open source as much technology as possible, both hardware and software. Complete knowledge should be disseminated in order to build and improve a foundation of understanding and trust. This will bring about a more level playing field. I believe in "every man/woman for himself/herself" but taking advantage of technology to collaborate and realize common beneficial goals is hypothesized to be quite desirable with side effects of friendliness and unity.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
What did Howard ever do that was successful besides being there when The Well came online?
Wishful thinking.
:)
"Without religion, we would have far less barbaric acts."
The entire 20th century was secular. A secular century, but probably one of our most violent in recorded history. 2 world wars, a cold war where we nearly burnt ourselves to a cold crisp, a Gulf War (and a follow-up in the next century), Vietnam.... just to name a few. A few. All secular.
Secu-freakin'-lar.
If it isn't for God, damn right it'll be for "national interests."
We'll kill each other no matter what.
Cheery, innit?
Before you blame the corporations (oops too late), take a quick look at the article, and you'll see that the only way they are able to prevent change is through "manipulating the political process". Everyone with an Econ 101 class under their belt should know that businesses should do everything in their power to suceed in the market, which should mean work hard, if the government is doing it's job. But, surprise, surprise, it's not! So before you get pissed off at the corportations and ask the government to assume more power (which will inevitably be used illegitimately by the highest bidder) to kick them down, think a little, and ask the government to do less. Then the people decide which firms survive and which do not with their dollar votes. It's 1000000 times better than democracy!
Self-organizing, self-optimizing.
Self-subsidizing they purchase a government that passes the laws that prop them up - Sugar (why is the FDA says that Stevia is a bad thing in the US but it is good for diabetics [you know the ones being manufactured by the American Corporate Diet] and it is selling like hotcakes everywhere else), the Steel industry, ADM, the Oil industry, the airlines, argibusiness ("Organic farms are making too much money, Waah! waah, we need the USDA to bend the rules in our favor").
Come on, none of these people, the "Captains of Industry" would not know pure capitalism if it bit them on the ass.
He can't seriously expect an economic system to develop out of such transitory technology. There's not nearly enough stability available, with technologies that are so quickly obselesced for agreement on value to spread significantly.
My money says he was just needing to get his name heard again and grabbed at the available straws, hoping they'd be there long enough for this to become true.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
...is some workable, "non-oppressive" alternative to the free market...
Capitalism is a great system, but what I really think the Lefties should concentrate on is not throwing the whole system out but rather tweak how it works.
Two of the characteristics that the capital system has assumed is the goal of a company which is traditionally to make money and the costs of business associated with achieving the goal.
Starting with costs, the system could be restructured towards a green economy by manipulating the costs - Gasoline costs a hell of a lot more, old-growth trees cost a lot to harvest, etc. With more ecologicaly orientated costs built into the system you would get eventually get your desired social system organized through capitalism.
The goals of a company too can be tweaked to achieve new societial effects. Individuals in a new society can easily create co-ops by organizing on the internet and having the co-ops focus on creating economic activity with goals such as creating jobs or providing free neighborhood watch functions in a local area thus having the profits returned to the community.
Or not.
Shh.
(no I didn't make that up myself).
I think a reading of the works of (probable socialist) Richard Dawkins might be illuminating on the topic.
Although he argues that the fundamental unit of selfishness is the gene and not the organism (or species). In many cases, our minds have overpowered our genes, and therefor, for humans, it might be that memes are the fundamental unit of selfishness. Susan Blackmore is another good source on the topic.
I find their writings to be mutually supportive of each another.
Free Me! (http://www.freeme.org/)
Once technology has lowered the high barrier-to-entry of multimedia distribution, i.e., once broadband gets cheap enough so that most households have it, then distributing a movie can be done over the p2p networks. As for making movies, digital cameras are getting super cheap. And then there is video editing software for next to nothing.
Heck, I am even making a short movie right now. Look for it on kazaa in a month or so....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Thanks for writing this.
I wonder if this "new economic system" they discuss, is really just the flourishing of a system where individuals can voluntary interact without or force or significant outside interference.
Of course the unit of exchange in a market need not be gold, fait money or even a tangible item, it could anything that has inherent value to the people trading - so long it has some attributes of divisibility, longevity, and immutability.
Free Me! (http://www.freeme.org/)
Unless you want it to become a hobby persuit. Sorry, but it's a simple fact of life. If I am going to invest the majority of my time in something, it MUST be something that makes me some money. I need a place to live, food to eat, and I'd really like some extra cash to spend on a computer that lets me make digital content.
So, if creating IP leads to no money (as most of the IP I create does) then it can only be a free time activity. It is second place to my job, never mind things like family and such.
Along those line, I work on what I like, not what is the most important to teh advancement of mankind. In fact, I'd say all my IP is essentially worthles outside of limited entertainment. Too bad, I'm not making money, I'm doing it for fun, so I do what I please. If it's not an effective use of my time and skills, tough.
Further, I am limited by money as to what equipment I can procure to produce my IP. For many kinds of IP, you need tools to create it. If I wish to create digital photos, I need a camera that can take digital photos. This is a physical good that requires resources, and therefore money, to produce. Likewise for all software I need a computer, which is also physical.
Thus if you want IP developed on a serious basis, like, say, blockbuster movies like the Matrix, or new drugs that require tens of millions of dollars in research to realise, then there has to be money involved. Individuals simply cannot undertake ventures like that by themselves. THey lack the time and the money to do such a thing as a gesture of goodwill for other people.
So, really, you have to pay people for IP if you want them doing it professionally. I'm not saying on a per copy basis, maybe it's a socialist system where tax dollars pay a single payment for eaxh IP created, maybe it is payed for a certina number of times, then is free, whatever. I certianly am not one that claims we have a perfect system now (copyright length is BS and clearly unconstutional), however this "IT should all be free" philsophy overlooks what it requires to produce much of the IP we like.
[sigh] One of the things that drives me nuts about Randroids is the way they try to redefine perfectly good words to fit their own ends. (They remind me, in this as in a lot of ways, of Marxists. Actually.) "Greed" and "self-interest" do not have the same meaning; they are similar but distinct concepts, and everyone but fanatics understands this.
Greed: taking everything you can get your hands on.
Self-interest: acting in the way that most benefits you.
Is this too hard to understand?
Splitting hairs. It most benifits Bill Gates to own and hold as much as he can. This is either greed or self interest. In most situations they are the same. Only in some border cases is there a difference.
But Pure capatalism would eat itself, and people would revolt. Because as Communism makes overly optimistic assumptions about human nature, Capatalism makes a few too many pessimistic assumptions as well and assuming markets will be free and manaipulations does not occur. Both are flawed systems. There will eventually be better alternatives.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Yepper. That was one of the best responses I've ever read on slashdot.
"...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
Nature's encouragement of greed/self-interest is now something that humanity, if it wants to survive, must overcome.
And we replace it with what? The 'greater good', which is invariably defined by the person who yammers on about it? Which would make the definition one created out of self-interest, would it not?
Cut the socialist clap-trap about how 'self-interest' is evil and counter-survival. It's not only pure, unadulterated crap, it's pathetically juvenile.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I would assume the 'markets' he is referring to are a group of vendors bartering with customers way back before laws were created to regulate the trading. This has evolved to a highly regulated form of capitalism found in most western nations and in some cases the regulation has become enough to call it socialism.
If the ideal of global competition being opened and forcing the removal or regulations that keep obsolete industries working, it sounds like we are moving right back to where we started.
Visit a flea market and talk prices with some vendors. That is the only place I see open capitalism, and I find it refreshing.
Heck, I am even making a short movie right now. Look for it on kazaa in a month or so....
I'm editing one right now. Kazaa is an unlikely place to find it. Maybe iFilm. But the short film is a means to an end - it's not the end itself. And there's a big difference between a short and a feature in terms of time and cost to produce.
My short cost $400 - and that's with everyone giving equipment and time for free, and a two-day shooting schedule. That doesn't include editing software, which cost $1500+tax. Or computer equipment (up to about $4000 on that puppy now all told).
Still... if you really are making a short, then what's it called and how do you find it? Here's the web-page for mine:
http://www.popcornfilms.com/projects.html
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Err, that should be "But you can't run an economy soley based on commodities!"
Damn preview button. Always making me not hit it.
Too the editor...
There's been an assumption that since communism failed,
When did communism fail ?
It was never implemented..
definition communism: Theory of political and economic development proposed by Karl Marx. In Marxist theory, "communism" denotes the final stage of human historical development in which the people rule both politically (compare: democracy) and economically (contrast: capitalism).
Please point me to a country that was/is run
by the people
mmm... Russia ? Umm no, Anyone who reads up on russian history, will know that what was implemented by lenin after the civil war wasn't communism... It was State Capitalism ( the state owned everything)
mmm... I know North Korea
Ow yeah how about China? sorry.. ( State Capitalism)
Dictators and State Captialism =! Communism.
it's because only Americans are stupid enough to pay money for frozen water?
(yes I'm joking, and American.)
is what both these concepts boil down to.
/. hive mind.]
Rationalize it off into a corner so that you can feel better about the situation, with religious fervour, or whatever else, if you have to feel better about the situation, but the two words refer to the same thing.
now, capitalism[of the Adam Smith variety, afaik] will try to suggest that if both parties act in their best interest, they will both gain, so long as certain conditions are met. strictly speaking, this is more or less true, but the certain conditions are really, really hard to come by.
Nietzsche's work suggests that either the most aggressive and brutal, or a-banding-together [or more likely dominance of the weak by the strong or each other] causes greater survival. both of these achieve a *different* world through greed and the will to power, and that it happens whether we want it to happen or not. There is no sense, fighting against greed, in a sense, for it is everywhere, by necessity. This point must not be left unaccounted for.
Capitalism pushes the boundary as to where exactly the dominance happens, and moves the 'master' in the master-slave relationship almost an incomprehensible distance [the *master* is the *consumer* and if the slave is the consumer, then the *master* is partially themself!]. This distance is also a distance that must be fought-against in any sort of revolt against the oppressive forces, any revolt *against* the strong by the weak. Whereas four thousand or so years ago, you could flee from or explode and express violent feelings as a reaction to your master, these days there is no where to run, there is no one to fight against. no one, less a few accidents, really knows who is in charge (the markets, corporations, and *ourselves*), and even if you could know what's going on, the sheer magnitude of it all would frighten a person back into submission.
But you also hedge the issue when you demand that words have different meanings. Greed does not have any meaning other than self interest, however when said it refers as well to a possible interpretation of self-interest; that is, a negative one.
If you are, for example christian, it is *easier* to say that you are acting in your own self-interest for it distances you from your act, and since it would cause guilt and or shame for you to be both a christian and for you to commit an act against your faith in the eyes of your fellowman, and that greed is necessarily against christianity[or at least some forms of it]. So yes, distance between the act and the actor.
What would be the next step? If human nature is greedy, and if self-interest is really what happens and not greed, where's the next step? Performing my duty? Perhaps as a selfless capitalistic citizen of the Free Trade Arena of the Americas, in my completely self-interest-less matter, I will conduct my business in such a way as to benifit as many people as possible through the market structure? Perhaps I will just become one with the Tao?
[Meta:Hopefully someone will mod this post so that I will know whether or not I am still resonating in harmony with the
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Rheingold: "If I was a Nokia (NOK) or a Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), I would take a fraction of what I'm spending on those buildings full of expensive people and give out a whole bunch of prototypes to a whole bunch of 15-year-olds and have contracts with them where you can observe their behavior in an ethical way and enable them to suggest innovations, and give them some reasonable small reward for that. And once in a while, you're going to make a billion dollars off it."
Companies do this all the time. Everyone from Pepsi to Motorola to vacuum cleaner companies to newspapers (to name a few of the projects I've worked on since the mid-90s: in the early 90s I experienced it in Japan with high school girls, the all-powerful force driving product development and marketing in Japan).
As is usual, the "gurus" are either behind the times, clueless, or purposefully making suggestions that are already in action so that they look good once the existence of these things become more commonly known by the population: "hey, that Rheingold guy suggested that..." Yeah, right.
Wow the internet changes everything?!?!
it accelerates the economy it allows groups to get together faster and exchange information faster???
I never knew that. thanks to this guy my whole vision of how the internet will improve things is uterly changed. I sure hope they give him a nobel prize or something....without him the world would never know this important tidbit of information.
I mean gosh...
stendec@gmail.com
What all this trend are converge to is in fact a Gift economy or Potlach economy. In gift economy status of the participant defined not by his material possesion and not by formal administartive standing(that is not how many people he can order around), but how famous he is and how generous to society. That is status defined by reputation, and reputation defined by magnitude of his deeds and benefits of community caused by those deeds. The potlatch itself is an example of a gift economy, whereby the host demonstrates their wealth and prominence through giving away their possessions during huge feast and thus prompt participans to reciprocate when they hold their own potlatch. Host of potlach usually was spending all his material possesion during potlach. The potlach economy was widespread all around the world, among native americans, siberians, steppes of Asia etc. That is it's proven that such economy can exists. BTW mongol tribes of Genghis Khan practiced potlach.
Nonsense, no one has ever managed to conner a market for long, though they can cause great harm in the short term with government help. All of that restrictive cross licensing nightmare is a government creation. Without dead stupid IP laws, the markets would quickly correct problems like Microsoft. It's happening anyway, and M$ is running like a baby to Uncle Sam for DMCA and other help. There's a sucker market for shares in such greedy schemes, but it's always a loser and smart money goes with the flow.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
That message is worth repeating every twenty years. The sad part is when people have heard it, don't know how it works and think they can legislate and government spend themselves into prosperity. As Alan Greenspan once said, "the laws of supply and demand are not to be conned." The invisible hand slaps people who think they are smarter than it is.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Some real trends worth following:
This isn't a new phenomenon. There are many tangible products where the manufacturing cost is a tiny fraction of the retail price. Soft drinks, for example. Bottled water. Jeans. Batteries. Printer ink. There are successful business strategies for pushing the price up, ranging from heavy brand promotion to lock-in. Just because it could be cheap doesn't mean it will be.
We're starting to see these strategies applied to the Internet. "SBC Yahoo DSL", and "AOL for Broadband" are examples.
Electric power is a striking example of an unstable market. There's no inventory. Demand is relatively inelastic. Producers have high fixed costs. The result is prices that change by three orders of magnitude within a single day. This huge volatility can be exploited by traders, which makes things worse.
There's much economic theology around this issue, and not enough theory with predictive power. This area needs more simulation and less pontification.
Now these are the real issues in postmodern capitalism. Not peer to peer networking.
'new economic system' born of 'unconscious cooperation' embodied by such technologies as Google links and Amazon lists
The last time I checked my car didn't run on Google Links and Amazon lists and I didn't sleep inside a Blog. An economic system has to deal with the physical world, and where the rubber meets the road is where all the conflict has been over the course of human history We're talking about the distribution of SCARE resources like oil, timber, cement, skilled labor, etc. not things that can be effortlessly and almost endlessly copied, like computer programs. Maybe he's talking about a new form of commerce, or a new concept of intellectual property but he's nowhere near a new economic system.
"Nobody confuses "nose" and "noose", so what the hell is up with "lose" and "loose"?"
Because people are fucking morons. If they weren't, our last three Presidents* would not have been elected. Fucking loosers. Er, losers.
* Substitute Prime Minister where appropriate.
Well if you want to get varied, then try Socialism as opposed to Communism. In fact, you could argue that even the United States is largely Socialist in many ways already.
The US is an example of a mix of Socialism and Capitalism, though certainly just one among many.
Take for example the Interstate Freeway System. This system was a fine example of state planning. In order to make it more palatable to business, the money which was federal in origin was dispersed by the States to local private construction firms. So, the US is an economic mix of both central planning and private enterprise. So, it doesn't have to be all one way or the other and, in fact, it isn't.
The really intriguing thing is that it is in China that military privatization is far, far more advanced than in the US. The Red Army needs to turn a profit. Compare that to the US military which is comparatively a totally socialist organization. Now that's where it starts to get weird.
And when the going gets weird. . .
also self-destructing....
btw I had to turn off the windows firewall built into SP2 to access slashdot... great job capitalism!!!!!!!
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
I'd like to agree with you for the most part as an american and further elaborate. I believe the main reason for our current decline is this idea that everyone is evil, so it's ok if I'm evil to get my share.
It's a corrosive, nasty idea that contradicts the lessons of our history. The late victorian culture here was largely one of cooperation, self regulated kindness towards others, and a concept of justice. Sure, it was deeply flawed in many ways, what with its exceptions for black people, and a lingering tradition of hierarchy, but if you focus in on the actions of individuals and how they treated each other, there was a fundamental difference from the mainstream one today.
Unfortunately, immigration from places that did not practise the same cooperative traditions brought in plenty of people to take advantage and much up the existing system. Today, take for example the way people act in Oklahoma or Minnesota and compare it with New York, LA, Houston, or Chicago.
Once I was driving through Oklahoma and pulled over to the side of the freeway. People kept stopping every few minutes to see if I was ok or needed help! I had to leave so they'd quit stopping! Sorry guys, but this really busts the theory that all people are always selfish. What could they possibly gain by pulling over?
Tasmania in Australia is another example of a somewhat intact Victorian-Enlightenment reformed society. You ask for directions there and people offer to drive you where you're going. Nice.
Why do we complicate things by oversimplifying? People aren't selfish, they're needful. If their basic needs are met, they'll probably end up being mean to get what they need. However, if their needs are pretty much met, they can and will start to look after the needs of others.
(I know what I said above is simplified too, but I believe quite accurate since it describes the average)
Ultimately, we need to do what the enlightenment and their followers tried to do- pull together enough people to establish a consensus view that cooperation is important, and then band together to ruthlessly work against those who refuse to cooperate. Such a system need not be fragile. If someone is clearly an asshole, don't help them out. If someone is clearly treating others with concern, do the same towards them. Easy.
The problem with that fantasy is that as soon as you abolish the state another state will rise up in its place. There will always be some people who want to rule over others and are willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen.
The concept behind this "Next Social Revoloution" or "unconscious cooperation" is no more than the current American economic system in place today. The unconscious cooperation is inherently Captitalism because it is based off of greed (not a bad thing neccessarily). The P2P networks are merely a source for information at cheap cost (e.g. Internet Connection), that is benifical to the end user. This is no different then a Capitalism, the best product at the lowest relative cost wins out. In this case P2P is cheap, and gives the best product relative to price (e.g. not the greatest video as far as quality, however low price). This "new social revoloution" as described is no more then hipe words in a headline used to draw attention to an inert idea.
America will not be left in the dust primarily because our constitution and economic system allow us a wide range of adaptation. This can be seen in the first few decades of the 20th Century. In the beginning, of the 20th Century we had a Conservative president. This was due to wide economic success, and the need for the growth of business with out government inhabition. This allowed an acceletated growth until the economy began to slow down with the destabalization of America's economic market in Europe, and a more Liberal president was elected due to low economic success, and the need for economic assistance to the poor. The government and economy the adapted to create a thriving war infrastructure that led to a boom in the years after, and the election of Conservative president. This cycle continues throughout the 20th century and will more than likely continue into the 21st. This cycle shows the U.S's ability to change in the advent of poor economic conditions to a different platform and government operation. If a radical change in world economy would happen, the U.S. would adapt with a different style of government which is is allowed by our Constitution. This basically sums up to the sheer fact in the United States that if you don't adapt, you die.
Capitalism thrives on the best, and dies from the worst, if a business choses to attempt to squash a P2P network then something else will be created. This is the spawn of the Open Source network, and the internet. These systems which thrive the most in the United States will continue to work because there are platforms in the United States for them to. The sheer concept behind a new economy in the nature of P2P spawned from Capitalism (yes, Google and Amazon were spawned from Capitalism and still use it) defeating Capitalsim is idiotic. These new industries have become successfull because they are the best, and they work on the Capitalist system as such. They thrive on a market of capitalism, and without the consumer buying that new book, or searching for a product\service\information none of these services would exist !
So... because they constantly want to use ice in Germany, the US uses ice widely? I'm sure you meant that another way. I just can't figure out which way ;)
Though I agree that the US seems to commoditise ice a lot more than the UK.
So your response was... name-calling? And then you call me juvenile?
Every time you see the words Technology/Technologies or Innovation/Innovations, take a drink.
Every time you see a buzzword from above, take two drinks.
And then don't drive. For a while.
Even if it had no economic value whatsoever, education clearly is vital to encouraging people to behave less like primates. Try living in a genuinely bad neighbourhood like mine, where nearly all the population is unable to even read and write.
Here you don't see curiousity about the world, individual free thought, value for beauty, etc. Instead you see dominance hierarchies established by threatening behaviour, rigid conformity to group values, competition for and near ownership of women, and zero human progress.
We seem to forget what people in the past were trying counteract when they established education that included literature, logic, and philosophy. Our god-worship of the market tries to reduce everything to its immediate value in economic terms. I say, create decent people who value things for their own sake, and economic success will follow.
For what it's worth, it seems like from my studies and from visiting Russia, tha the soviet architects missed this fundamental point too. Only Gorbachev seemed to realize the importance of establishing a society of quality persons, but his efforts to ban vodka, etc, did not come to much.
Hello, fellas, will someone bother reading Marx before discussing Communism? Soviet feudalism was as far from Communism as Western democracy is from democracy.
Modern cream have nothing against us associating Communism with visions of prisons, famine, uniform and general 1984. But what a brilliant substitution of concepts.
Apart from predicting mobile phones, is this the advent of the moneyless society?
Don't tell the Ferengi!
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
p.s. Please see this page for more details on the insidious propaganda that underlies the traditional depiction of Smurf society.
In the year 2012 the earth will cross a major magnetic line of the galaxy. After a mass extinction the resulting population will live according to their feelings of unconditional love.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
The abysmal failure of communism should be seen only as an abysmal failure of authoritarian government and not much more, certainly not as a success for the democratic capitalist system. The success (or failure) of the US capitalist system should be measured by it's own merits. This I think is where many Americans become confused. If the only metric used to determine the success of the US system is wealth and the exchange of wealth then American is the most successful nation on earth. But there is a lot more to life than wealth.
Consider the adult literacy rate, a crucial component to a true democracy. The US has a lower adult literacy rate (~97%) than all of northern Europe (100%).
Consider freedom of the press, another critical component of a democracy. Here to the US is ranked 17th again behind most of northern Europe.
The same with violent crime, murder, private & public debt and pollution output.
I'm a naturalized US citizen, and in the years that I have lived in the US, I have witnessed a slow erosion of many of the things that lured my parents to move to the US to begin with. Now I've moved back to the EU I've found that all governments could stand for a lot of improvement and no society really is significantly better than others but rather different.
So I guess it's a matter of finding a society to live in who faults don't totally offend you.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
"The abysmal failure of communism should be seen only as an abysmal failure of authoritarian government and not much more, certainly not as a success for the democratic capitalist system."
It is not a random coincidence that comunisist states have all been authoritarian. Centraliszed control of economies invite the worst to seize power and facilitate their ability to hold it.
stendec@gmail.com
'...therefore humans have stopped evolving new systems for economic production.'
No we haven't http://www.parecon.org. Its just that people have stopped reporting such things.
whats wrong with conscience cooperation?
In a communist economy, state owned monopolies protect the proletariat at the expense of profits and efficiency.
(Choke - coffee hits keyboard) Uh, what? You mean by sending them to gulags if they don't pretend to work while the monopolies pretend to pay them?
So this is where you'll tell me that it's just every implementation that ever happened that was horribly flawed, not communism itself ... OK ...
Indeed. Social / hive insects are strictly royalists with rule being by "divine right" (i.e. birth). No communism here.
Canines have a hierarchical structure that closely mirrors that of some barbarian warrior groups: "head honcho" is the toughest; his captains are the next toughest; liutenants are the next toughest; and the rest are those who aren't tough enough. Even less communistic than the social insects.
Never forget: there has only been one culture in all recorded history that celebrates the cold-blooded murder of innocents.
Rubbish. There have been loads of them. Now, they are usually wiped out eventually because not all the people they try to murder are innocents incapable of defending themselves, but america is doing a particularly bad job of crushing islam because they're mixing in attempts to change and control western society too instead of just, well, crushing islam.
Value added service.
The radio was supposed to kill the record industry. The VCR was supposed to kill the cinema.... the DVD sure as hell was supposed to kill the cinema when in the UK the DVD has been largely responsible for a huge boom in cinema going.
The DVD (unexpectedly) aided the cinema industry because it got people consuming movies again. It made movie watching a regular leasure activity. As people grew to appreciate movies more they wanted a better quality experience watching movies they were especially excited about. In the UK there was a big push by the cinemas to make the cinema experience a rich one, big good quality screens, top notch sound etc etc so that the new wealth of "movie buffs" in society could get a better experience than they ever could from a DVD.
Its a value added service and it's booming despite predictions beforehand.
You see ecconomics isn't just about spredsheets, it's about people too. It has a social factor and overlaps with sociology.
Man, you guys need to get your little factoids hats checked.
Japan has been consistently beating us economically for a while now. So what is this ignorant line about the US falling behind "the rest" of the world? Japan is #1 right now.
In terms of this so-called Unconcious market - which is a stupid and inane term, you wouldn't want to run anything unconciously - what happens if the system fails? If power outages abound? We saw what happened during the nationwide blackout of 2003. It would be pretty stupid to combine "Google, Wikipedia and Amazon". C'mon guys. The new economy has been here for a while - it's called paperless money transfer, and has been taking place online and at our jobs for years now.
Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling sycophant to Linux Torvaldyos! Quit taking DP from ESR and RMS's feculent cocks and why don't you try to stop sucking quite so much? Get out of your parents' basement and see the real world - maybe then you'll see how pathetic you sound, with your neverending stream of bullshit about how Microsoft is stalking you. Wasn't it you who said that Microsoft believes your insane ranting is actually a threat to them, so they PAY PEOPLE to reply to you on Slashdot? No sir, I don't get any money. I do it for the love. Someone has to go up against your paranoid whining. So get back in your cage and shut the fuck up already.
It's nice that people are beginning to realise the inevitable social change. As for what that social order will be, I am pretty sure it will be communism. When all work becomes either interesting enough to be done by volunteers or simple enough to be done by machines, it will make sense to move to communism (and the society will do it itself before we get to it). Then, later, as we get AI and nanotechnologies, capitalism will stop making any sense (since capital will be abundant) and the transition to communism will be inevitable. Of course, communism will not last long, as the Singularity may get rid of society completely.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
The problem in our capitalist economic system is that we are all longing for economic growth. But it is impossible to achieve this forever, because everything is finite. Another problem is the growing inequality that is happening in all capitalist societies. The richer become richer, the poorer become poorer.
So a new Social Revolution should aim at new technologies for energy, like eg solar energy, in order to become independent from oil an coal (also to avoid an ecological collapse) and it should develop an economic system which does not need permanent economic growth, and it has to be a fair system, where poor people have a chance to develop.
It seems that some knowledge workers seem to lack certain bits of knowledge - namely that you can't eat information, live in it or use it to travel from A to B. The real economy is not dead, and is likely to survive at least until they invent replicators.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Go to the Cinima in the UK and what do you get.
15 people, all paying $9 to sit in a 150 seeter theter, watching some crap MPAA film, that's shown on 3 other screens even though they get a 50% walk out.
Now if one screen was for Indy movies, that cost $5 (or even $9) and weren't quite so.. umm.... polished?... umm..., but a bit different. I'd go to the cinima more often.
You don't see many mobile phone gamers compalining that the game isn't up to readon 9700 quality. do you?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
If this new economy behaves like other network phenominae, i.e. following a power law then it will produce a bevy of Billionaires.
Now, I dont have any problem with Billionaires or even Millionaires, but think about it in this way; which of the "root bloggers" or internet celebrities would you select to be the first multi Brillionaire of this new economy if you had the choice?
More to the point, which one would you trust to have that much power? They would not only have the cash, but they would also dominate this new economy, and being first movers, it would be VERY difficult to find a place let alone compete effectively.
Then again, if it is more fair than the real world economy, it may act like a frictionless meritocracy. That would be ideal; take paypal out of the equation and replace it with Chaumian e-cash and then we might finally achieve "detachment" (spontaneous, mass independence from regulation).
Which would really change everything.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
living in the first communist state Russia and knowing a bit the history ( just a remark - I'm against communism as theory as it based on dated assumptions and early theoretic Marx Engels and Lenin are now could be considered ( at least for me and for many others whom I know or communicated with) funny as now we know much more on social systems than they did and what happened in capitalist world -just not at any resemblance to what they predicted in their books) I just would note , that centralized control appeared as a result of fight and need to concur the world. Initially Lenin did plan to make all the world to be communistic - and Russia was just a base for future fight. and this way ( preparing for war significantly affected how the process developed.
And yes it also was 'exported' to other countries as a model of development. So yes - centralized control is not a mere coincidence this was caused a number of affecting facts. But if you would think that Taiwan or South Korea dictatorships in the previous century were the necessary attribute of capitalism this would be wrong.
The same way - communism had a potential to be different ( especially that which based on Marxism ) but Marxism was not the main moving force in so called communist countries - but rather leftism type.
I do not welcome communism. And do not think this is a viable theory ( again it is dated and also wrong in most of it's concepts) so I have no desire to agree with starter of thread.
Communism is just underdeveloped theory with many weak points ( rather imagining facts than taking things from how they really exist) and seems could never become a working in practice theory. But painting existed communist states as a necessary result of communism theory is rather a result propaganda pitch which was necessary to fight communist theory.
Communism potentially could be more people friendly and less totalitarian - but always was developed in states which were prepared for fight. And the last is not mere coincidence as capitalist world was always eager to crash communist states since they appeared.
Is it just that all heavily centraliszed economies are doomed to fail?
or do you have a point related to capitalism?
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Is it just that all heavily centraliszed economies are doomed to fail? as of me ;)
I think YES.
Centralized control is just non viable way to deal with economy. After all economy is a science. And centralized control is proved to fail to be optimal to allocate resources compared with market ecopnomy etc. Centralized control tends to lay up negative tendencies (as there are no motivation to overcome them - it is just to easy to start to forget and not deal them) and thus centralized societies are about to be weak.
It was good right up to that last bit. He managed to shake the communism/capitalism black&white thing, but he's still got this "end-of-the-world = U.S. falling behind" problem.
The world is round. The U.S. is behind the rest of the world once a day -- at local midnight. At local noon, it's in front. The rest of the time it's either moving to the front or to the back. Why do so many otherwise smart people fail to realize this?
you are capturing the grassroots political zeitgeist of the day, correct? I mean, you have taken it out of the air, and applied it absurdly to ice, and it is funny, but it can only be funny if there is some truth to it, right?
I was a rightwing paleo con 10 years, before I got on the Net, but now I am a confirmed leftist, and the reason why is encapsulated in your little joke. But I came across some of these ideas, albeit secondhand, 15 years ago, and I rejected them then. But now I accept them.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Classical Marxist theory states you have a Working Class and a Ruling Class. The Working Class has exactly one asset, its labour. The Ruling Class ultimately depends for its survival on the Working Class.
According to this model, the Working Class could use its labour just to support itself, and say a big fat "screw you" to the Ruling Class -- and do less work into the bargain, to the tune of whatever it was costing to keep the Ruling Class in luxury goods. This is what most people think of as "revolution", and it usually goes T.U. when the organisers of the Revolution, having won the respect of the people, start falling into the decadent ways of the former Ruling Class.
Well, that may have worked in a manufacturing economy when the Working Class was doing things like growing food, building houses, making cars, &c. But today, thanks to a combination of automating many jobs out of existence and outsourcing the rest, a new class has emerged: the Consuming Class. The Consuming Class own DVD players and cell phones (made, BTW, using a labour force to whom such things would largely be useless), and think they are above the Working Class. The Consuming Class does work, but it is meaningless and irrelevant: what the heck is a telephone sanitiser going to do after the revolution? And on the flipside, who will till the soil, grind the grain, bake the bread? Who will build the homes, do the wiring and the plumbing? Marxist theory suggests the Consuming Class would perish before the Ruling Class, since the latter at least usually has savings.
The other reason why Classical Marxist theory doesn't apply anymore is that -- as far as some kinds of things are concerned -- we are now living in an age of plenty rather than an age of scarcity, and that really tends to muck up the traditional concept of value which underpins both Capitalism and Socialism. When it takes hardly any more work to make a thousand or a million examples of something than it took to make the first, how do you decide what price to sell it for?
As a former New Age Traveller, I have first hand experience of attempting a unilateral declaration of independence, and it isn't easy. Every so often, you still run up against a dependency on some big corporation or another: the supermarkets, the oil companies, and -- for some of my friends -- the NHS.
Social change is needed alright, but a lot of people are going to get hurt when it comes.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Or it could just be the nature of cultures Americans are freaky workaholics and despite the best efforts of the government everyone is still making money, where us eastern Europeans crave someone to really tells us what to do, but not many of us are interested in working a 60 hour work week.
I think it is just that authoritarian governments naturally create the corruption that causes their inevitable collapse. Just like corporations naturally don't have the societal responsibility and so are more likely to be evil.
Also is a heavily centralized economy a requirement for a socialized society?
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
My problem with the paragraph I quoted above is that by any reasonable standards almost everybody in the west and even a good portion of the developing world really do not have any pressing needs, at least not if we leave aside our collective need to repay our debts to the natural world. What we all consider are our needs are things we have come to think we need through far too long in the comfort zone.
During the heady interlude of the late '60s and early '70s, tests for authoritarian tendencies were taught as an exemplar of psychology's ability to detect dysfunctionality. A third of a century later, we are bombarded by media insisting on party unity and strong leadership. Meanwhile standards of education and nurture fell away disproportionately for an underbelly which is increasingly happy to be told how to live their lives rather than think for themselves.
Ike's failed warning against the rise of the military industrial complex should have been paralleled by a similar warning about letting vital social safety nets metamorphise into the growth-seeking fear industries of today. Once upon a time the likes of the law and insurance were supposed to only be there for when things came unstuck, but they offered meal tickets to empire builders. In some areas they have even achieved budget growth effectively immune from prudential scrutiny, silencing dissent with their virulent proclamations about unspeakable evils to be vanquished.
And of course we all must have a job. How else can the growing underbelly gain a sense of self worth and avoid the destructive path to hopelessness? Jobs have also become a nice lazy way to redistribute a shrinking but still amply sufficient portion of the ever more devalued cash sloshing around the capitalist economies.
Time to get some new memes out there. Lets start by valuing "sharing" more than "saving" and "hobbies" more than "shopping".
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
Because there is such a high barrier to entry for the media infrastructure, naturally most the political ideas that are disseminated from the media are "top down", favoring the status quo, favoring those in power, etc.
But when the media infrastructure includes p2p networks, cheap digital cameras, and free editing and effects software, I would think that the political ideas disseminated would be more "bottom up", which would be ideas favoring the bottom of the social, economic hierarchy. For example, right now, universal healthcare is not found in America, and that is a good thing for the rich, for the corporations, and the investors, because it disempowers the workers, giving them less control, placing them at a disadvantage. But when entertainment is generated independent of powerful and entrenched media infrastructure, I would think that universal healthcare would become a political priority.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
For information in British terms Dawkins views place him on the left wing of the ruling British Labour Party and thus are broadly socialist. His most recent political activity has been taking a strong stand against the war in Iraq in opposition to Blair's Labour Government.
Another important area is the theory of the evolutionary development of altruism by John Maynard Smith which are based on games theory - so much for the dumb antisocial objectivists.
However, it is fictional, i.e. NOT REAL... and Star Trek is not real either, no matter how much some people wish otherwise.
4 045hyvlcE
Tell that to this guy http://community.webshots.com/photo/70233469/7023
"Insert Sig Here"
Yes?
-- "I'm not a religious man, but if you're up there, save me Superman..."
hahaha
yes it is a matter of degree of centralization. so - there are economists ( those that get Nodel prizes for economy inventions) which find in their studies which degree of control is OPTIMAL. so it is matter to follow studies which find that MORE desecentralised economy is better than MORE centrilised economy. but this is more is a matter of studies and not a matter of idealogy. The centralization of power in communist states were partly result of idelogy and not economic theory. Though - 'sovieti' the basis of communist ideology - is just desentrilesed control of society - BUT these sovieti did NOT work as a control organisations there wer just decorations at least in USSR - so they were that Lenin asked in his books BUT did not performed the task which were assigned to them in Marz and Lenin books. and that Gorbatchev started to move to desentrilised economy is just communists realised-that sciense conclusions are about to be different with that time current economy practise
Or it could just be the nature of cultures Americans are freaky workaholics and despite the best efforts of the government everyone is still making money, where us eastern Europeans crave someone to really tells us what to do, but not many of us are interested in working a 60 hour work week. it is just a wrong generalisation. In small private companies russians are workhagolics. Which work sometimes MORE than 60 hours per week. in the companies which are badly managed and there are no motivation yes still people tend to have lazy lifes. But I think that there are just too many examples of hardly working eastern europians just a fact which shows - there is no such thing like cultural addiction to work. This addiction is dictated by outside influcence.I think it is just that authoritarian governments naturally create the corruption that causes their inevitable collapse.
yes authoritarian governments naturally create the corruption and also naturally create ineffective managment that is why authoritarian societies fail.Careful, logical scientific analysis and pure capitalism can help eliminate this drag on your corporation's productivity.
Are your workers taking extra time to be nice to people who aren't going to contribute to your bottom line?
Are your researchers spending too much time daydreaming and contributing to the scientific community at large by writing journal articles that competitors might read when they could better be spending their time with their mouths shut fixing problems here and now?
Are your workers helping out customers doing things behind the scenes (maybe the customer doesn't even know about the time-consuming effort) that cost a lot of money when that time and money could be better invested in a good marketing campaign to affect customers' perceptions?
Time and the logical course of our current system will cure this problem for you!
Sure, there are a few religious tenets getting in the way of utopia, but by co-opting those religions with our superior doctrines of prosperity and social Darwinism we can win.
Sincerely,
The Man
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Having lived in four countries over the past 12 years, I agree with your earlier comment to the effect that no single country has got everything right. With reference to your comments about the Federal Reserve (and similar central banking institutions in other countries), however, I have have to disagree. There is a tremendous amount of difference between the influence of the Fed and the power of central planners in a command economy (the term economists sometimes use to describe systems such as those of the former Soviet Union etc.) The key word is "command" - the Fed does not make anyone do anything. They alter the the parameters within which business and individuals make their decisions on the expectation that outcomes will move in one direction rather than an other. They do not dictate behavior or otherwise tell those who control economic resources how they should use those resources.
Dispite disagreeing with this part of the argument, I do agree with you on the link between authoritarian government, corruption and almost inevitable collapse (or stagnation).
I've finally got around to changing my sig
Knowing the classic American love of conspicious consumption, I think it had to do with the fact that, before refrigeration, the wealthy elites of American society could afford an icehouse or deliveries of ice. They put ice in their drinks; this was emulated by whomever in the middle class could afford it. Once refridgeration spread, everyone could 'look rich' for a penny's worth of water. Ice used to be valuable, and so it remains as a cultural preference to this day.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
That's exactly what I was looking for: command. So some of the differences between a successful centralized economy and one that is not are A: limited corruption (which I suppose is accomplished by changing management more frequently) and B: a lack of command (i.e. alter parameters like interest rates but don't make decisions for third parties).
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
this sounds like some troll article trying to normalize the public opinion that open source software is analogous to communism... i don't see anyone being forced to produce software in prison camps for open source party bosses. if you are walking down the street and you help someone change a tire because they need help, is this a new economic force at work? NO we live in such an anti-altruistic corporate society that the concept of anyone doing something just because they like it or because it fills a badly needed void without monetary gain seems totally alien to the average economist.
The concept that the runaway consumption of natural resources and the paving over of fertile land
either in the name of western Capitalism, or in the name of nature-unfriendly Communism (China and the former USSR has/had a HORRIBLE environmental record)
can go on forever
is science fiction.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Also I think that the greatest danger to American society (as mentioned in the article) is the Americans. Part of the points I was trying to make earlier is that I don't really think that Communism / Socialism / Capitalism are what makes a society fail or not (or define a society as being better) but rather Authoritarian aspect is the cause of these failures. And having said that I think that this is really the direction the US is beginning to take and so I wonder what effects it will have on the US economy / society. For example I think of Singapore as a fairly Authoritarian society which has a stable economy (but I have no idea how their banking system works)
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Actually, they would be full-blown fascists. High-level cooperation between government and business leaders is the foundation of a fascist state.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Tell me -- because there's Windows, do you think operating systems are a bad thing?
Get a clue, poopsie: if the government is maintaining barriers, that's not a fault of a free market.
One problem is that there are many people who do not read all that much, or at least not in depth. That is why when broadband gets cheap, political activists will be able to reach a much larger audience with video projects.
Also, there are still many people who although they are on the Net, do not access that much outside of the mainstream, big dollar websites.
It will just take more time....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
If people were more cooperative, like ants or dogs perhaps, Free Software would work fine.
Hey wait...
Or it is at least a wash... Soda costs like 20 cents a gallon when you buy the concentrate in the kind of bulk that movie theaters do... Ice on the other hand costs quite a bit to keep cold/freeze. they are not ripping you off, they are providing what the consumer expects.
I think of Singapore as a fairly Authoritarian society which has a stable economy
then just my note I was replying on authoritarian consequences in economy.
Singapure has one of the decentrailised and free economical politics ( as well as Hong Hong does) yet both has authoritarian society in terms what is allowed to express as political points of view.
but economics and freedom to express political points of view are issues which could be separated when you speak on authoritarian society.
so from observed facts - authorizm in economy leads to stagnation of economy. Authorizm ( which has internal source to compete to bring new people and ideas etc) in politics is less harmfull to economy.
But actually I'm not ready to discuss not economic consequenses. NO it was mainly my point in previous posts. Just mixing ALL issues under the same definitins make things difficult to structurize and then give proper responses ...
NT
Instead of using outdated terms such as socialism to describe this new cooperative economy, they should be coining a new word, such as "karma-ocracy", where your reputation is your wealth.
Chip H.
It is a SciFi analogy: parallel worlds where the protagonists discover a parallel dystopia, at least compared to their world. But the dystopia is actually OUR world. The world they live in is a Swedenesque social democracy.
I have shot 10 minutes of video. But I need to create the interdimensional window. What can I use to do that? I am using Adobe Premiere to edit.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
China isn't doing so badly
China is NOT communist. If it were, there wouldn't be any IBM/Microsoft/Samsung subsidiaries there. China is a typical fascism, a system with private property, without political rights, and with the economy in the hands of the state and large corporations.
It seems most capitalistic societies are taking a more socialist turn - providing healhcare, welfare, education, etc
In fact, its exactly the opposite. Most countries are dismantling its social protection services. Everywhere they are applying "reforms" to the state, cutting public spending (except in defense), and "flexibilizing" labor.
Some of these policies are being forced by the IMF and the World Bank as conditions to refinance debt. Almost every underdeveloped country, and many developed ones have huge external debts and depend on credit to pay interests.
Any system based on the good will and selflessness of others will be victim to the most ruthless member. Therefore the system will collapse. This is the primary flaw in most "peace" initiatives, and would be a flaw in the proposed new economic system. In this case the most ruthless corporation would rule.
Additionally, you have to take into account government. In the US, government consumes roughly 36% of the total economy. In European nations it consumes more. The workforce in these nations must be continually driven to work more, work harder, and work more efficiently to satisfy the monetary needs of the ruling elites. The new economic model would be crushed under this burden.
Finally, the new model is incompatible with 90% of the worlds pre-industrial societies and would not function at all unless the society had a solid foundation of rule of law, property rights, and a highly educated, liberal-humanist population.
Someone just needs to press the reset button, that's all.
To paraphrase Noam Chomsky; just that communist countries *called* themselves socialist doesn't actually mean they were. Just as some eastern European communist countries called themselves democratic republics, when they obviously were not.
In fact, the first thing that Lenin did after the communist revolution in Russia was to dimantle the workers organizations and centralize power, in conflict with the socialist ideals. Communism (the russian version) was a perversion of socialism, just like the spanish inquisition was a perversion of christianity.
What we call capitalism today isn't true free-market capitalism either, even though everyone seems to say it is. In fact, the current capitalist system is highly protectionist (just look at what goes on at the WTO), and western society as it's currently organized would collapse pretty fast if the state stopped intervening in the economic system.
I can't believe nobody mentioned flash mobs. I _can_ believe that the comment thread was almost entirely off-topic.
Oh, and BTW, communism didn't fail. It never fails. It just gets called capitalism when it's communism for the wealthy.
Lessee, "communism failed" == socialism "failed".
Gee, and here I thought that the British Labour Party was, at base, socialist; the socialists won in Spain, the socialists look like they might take back France; Chavez beats US-backed recall in Argentina...while the US "free market capitalism" won...which is why our deregulated, monopolistic economy is down the tubes.
While we're on those lines, let me say "Dick Cheney" and "Halliburton no-bid contracts", and then quote a favorite explanation of someone who speaks with some authority on the subject, Benito Mussolini: "fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
Tell me again what social system "won", and explain how the current world situation doesn't resemble 1932, with the US starring as Germany?
And if Mah Fellow Amurcans don't like the comparison, try looking at the news from around the world, and you might note that about three-quarters of the world's population is *terrified* of this administration, and what America will be, if Bush is elected this time.
An alternative? If the generation that fought WWII was "the Greatest Generation", then it's time for us to be the children and grandchildren they deserve, and stand up to be counted, to stop neofascism here at home.
mark
Ages ago, I was surprised to learn that the definition of "economics" wasn't "the study of money" but rather the study of how people network their wants and needs. The definition I've come up with online is "the branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management". It always kept me wondering how an economy could exist without the use of money.
The thing about money is that, beyond the psychological impressions of it, it is simply a form of networking technology. I've always wondered if it could be replaced by another form of networking. With the advent of the Internet, it looks like another has possibly come about. The successes of "critical mass" phenomena such as Open Source, P2P, and Wikis shows that it is possible to do some things this way.
A system called LETS has been around for a while that maintains a form of local economy without using money. The Internet could allow such a system to be implemented on a much larger scale. I recall seeing something about it a while back on television that said the point of the system was to make people focus less on the currency and see that they could actually maintain a local economy without one.
I think there is an innate misconception in how an amount of money is percieved. The first impression of it is that it is a fixed measurement of something almost tangible, like mass, when in fact it is a percentage of the currency as a whole. It's a piece of a pie, and the pie doesn't get bigger- if you get a bigger piece, it means someone else has to get a smaller piece. It doesn't mean more pie for everyone. And it is actually a decentralised form of record-keeping. When you look at it that way, currency could simply be compared to something like the dewey decimal system, and can be replaced by other forms. The dependence on it also causes limitations. Take the example of an economy that requires a workforce smaller than the population. Should people that can't be part of the workforce simply be eliminated because they don't have an income? There is also an example of the illusion of money in The Money Myth Exploded by Louis Even.
I think that it is erroneous to compare not using currency with communism. The use of currency and democracy are independent of one another. You can still have democracy without currency. In fact, it would probably be a more ideal democracy because there wouldn't be the whole controversy of financial lobbying, soft money, biases from campaign contributions, rent-a-crowds, and vote buying.
"Will the advent of [A] give rise to a new [B] which displays emergent properties of [C]?"
Now make those all important calls to Stewart Brand's Global Business Network and the Foresight Institute. Beg John Brockman to slip something onto edge.org. Tap Esther Dyson and ask her to bring it up at the next Santa Fe Institute board meeting. One of these will provide the backing for the seed conference.
Now call up one of the youngsters you've been grooming, like Cory Doctorow, who will get very excited about this, without raising any awkward questions. The "memes" will then spread: and anyone who doubts that the political economy hasn't changed as if by magic can be dismissed very simply: they simply Don't Get It!
With that, you should be set up for two or three years of modestly lucrative consultancy - and then it's time to do it all over again. Rinse and repeat.
South America will likely be the genesis of the new leftism, modeling after the social democracies, no doubt.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Free/Open software seems to be working fine.
emt 377 emt 4
Bruce Sterling has collection of short stories in the book "A Good Old-fashioned Future". The lead in story, 'Maneki Neko,' describes such a world. Even if this wasn't a good story that ties in well to the primary subject, it would still be a very good collection of 'just over the horizon' sci-fi.....a very difficult thing to do.
From 'Maneki Neko':
"[...] I've been sudying your outfit for a long time now. We computer cops have names for your kind of people. Digital panarchies. Segmented, polycephalous, integrated influence networks. [...]"
Tsuyoshi blinked. "Look, I don't anything about all that. I'm just living my life."
"Well, your network gift economy is undermining the lawful, government-approved, regulated economy!"
"Well," Tsuyoshi said gently, "maybe my economy is better than your economy."
(the above reprinted with absolutely no permissions from the author, publisher, or any one else that matters but the little voice inside my head)
Papa's got a brand GNU bag. -- Advertisement: year 30 ALC (After Linux Commercialization)
capitalism doesn't require anything. It's an integral part of human nature. every child will pick it up seemlessly in play. All you can do is to make humans jump through hoops and thereby create a system full of artificial constraints that do everything but not what you intended. You can make it so bloated, bloody and difficult that humans have no chance to attain what they are striving for: a better life. This is communism.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
The centralization of power in communist states were partly result of ideology and not economic theory. Though - 'sovieti' the basis of communist ideology - is just decentralized control of society
I am reminded of several recent events in the US:
The Union of Concerned Scientists has published a paper titled: "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science" Their conclusions were that the Bush Administration "Suppresses and Distorts research findings at federal agencies" and "Undermined the Quality and Integrity of the Appointment Process" they go on to state: "There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented.". The motivations they give are that some topics are deemed sensitive and the reports "might provoke opposition from the administration s political and ideological supporters". as well as limit the administration's finical backers profitable endeavors.
Robert Cringely's current editorial "Fred Nold's legacy" which describes a 1982 paper on economic implications of criminal sentencing guidelines which contains conclusions which ran counter to the then current administration's ideology. For those that don't know or remember which administration: Ronald Regan took office in 1981
The requirement to show a government issued ID in order to travel within the US which apparently was surreptitiously passed in to law in 1996
Also the many example of the misuse of Anti-Terrorist laws in what I like to call the DOJ's version of embrace and extend where the apply these new laws to common criminals
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
And, as such, if IP is something from which no money can be made, I'll spend my time and effort on other things to make money. I do just that, right now. I work as computer support to make money, all the IP I generate makes me nothing. However that means it's free-time only, and what I want to do only. I'm not going to undertake something that is important, but a major project because I simply don't have time, given that I don't get paid for it.
So if we go to a system where ALL IP is free, then that will become how it always works. There won't be companies out there making it because there will be no money. People will do it as a hobby, not as a profession. The biggest problem would be for things like drug research. While I'll be the first to say our current drug system is broken and the companies are WAAAAY too greedy, that does not mean they should recieve no compensation for their work. It often costs tens of millions of dollars (sometimes hundreds) to develop a new drug. This is not the sort of thing that will happen as a hobby.
Now as I noted in another post, we could change the way that IP is paid for. You could do a socialist system where tax dollars pay for it, you could change it so that you are allowed to make X dollars, then it falls to public domain, or we oculd just go back to the orignal intent of the constitution and limit it to a short number of years in which you may charge for it, after which it become public.
What I am saying is that it is impractical to say that all IP should be free. Those that say, like you do, that "It's up to you to figure out how to make money from a particular endeavour" are correct, but if IP is something that money cannot be made on people will say "Ok, fine" and go do something else that does make money.
If you want me to primarly apply my skills to something, you need to pay me to do it since I have material needs I must fill. If you declared that computer support would be free, that's fine, I might still do some in my free time, but I would find another activity that did pay to spend the majority of my time on.
Of course, the current atheist revisionist historians will swear up and down that "America wasn't founded on Christianity", but it isn't true
What the supposedly "revisionist" historians are saying is that modern LAW, grounded in FOUNDING law, was not specifically Christian. The Founding Fathers were very specific in minimal government that didn't favor one religion. What modern day Christian Rightists are claiming is that because of the (semi-)Christian nature of the Founders that means that modern Christians should be able to legally enforce what they deem to fit with their view of morality, bypassing the church/state separation. You'd be much freer under President George Washington than President Pat Robertson.
The divide increasingly is not so much between those who have and those who don't, but those who know how to use what they have and those who don't.
It verbalizes what I've been thinking for last couple of years very nicely. US still is (yes it is, don't complain) land of opportunity IF you know how to use what you have. This also applies to poorer countries, since knowing how will put you ahead (in this case knowing how to get access to information, how to use it, filter what's good, etc.)
The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
Best post ever. :D
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
...Older trees are not the home of the tree fairy...
You know, I was thinking about what you said and I think that old stands of tree's are good to have around because of the biodiversity that's in an old stand. There are lot's of other organisms that exist in the overall ecology of an established forest, which newly planted tree's haven't had time to develop. Saving complete ecosystems instead of replacing then with monocultures is worthy enough to warrent an added cost if you want to destroy them.
Or not.
Shh.
>Christian/Moslim/Jewish/Davidian/Religion X zealots have killed millions of people who didn't agree with them. The Romans did it, the Greeks did it. Every society in the history of the world has gotten rid of pesky infidels. Not just Christians or Moslims, but EVERYBODY!
Any Buddhist zealots killing infidels in history? Just curious.
But again, that's how the system must be changed. You are correct about drug research, though a large portion is still done privately, but let's take video games as another example. If you haven't played Doom 3, play it, it's a great game and the engine is stellar. However there was a LOT of effort of a lot of people that went to its creation. It took a lat of hard coding work, good graphic design, 3d modeling, level design, music, sound effects, testing and so on. In other words, it cost a lot of money to produce. If iD software couldn't make any money on it, it would have been an infesable project to undertake.
Or how about movies? You can produce movies on a low budget, but not movies like the Matrix. Well low budget films like Pi are good, but so are films like the Matrix. I want both types. You aren't going to get a $100 million movie produced where there is no profit motive.
So if you want a sponsorship system, that's fine, but that's real different than all IP being free. It just means it's paid for beforehand.
I'm not trying to argue that the system we have now is the best. I'm not trying to argue that a capatalist-type IP system is the best. I AM saying that you must have some kind of monetary compensation for creating IP if you want it done on a serious basis.
I wonder where your divine wisdom comes from. Did god speak to you and revealed what was to come? And as you know with certainty what the futher holds maybe you could help me out with my portfolio.
Your post is nonsense. What would you substitute for self interest? The interest of others? The mayority? Some perceived interest of nature that contemporary greens define as remaining absolute static (nature being really all for remaining static as can be seen by the quite uneventful history of the planet)?
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Without religion, we would have far less barbaric acts.
But history shows otherwise: For example, the Soviet Union and many Communist Bloc countries were expressedly atheistic and anti-religion. They practiced oppression and genocide just as bad as the religious folk.
Also, there is Gengis Khan as someone above pointed out. If you look at Timur Leng (Tamerlane), he mostly fought and slaughtered fellow Muslims without any religious justification at all. Even the US fought fellow Christians in the Civil War.
If you go back in history a few millenia, the ancient polytheistic civilizations (Egypt, Babylon, Phoenecia, Rome, Greece, ...etc.) rarely if ever fought each other over religion. They even borrowed gods from each other. It was always some other ideology that dehumanized the others, barbarians vs. civilization, freedom vs. oppression, justice vs. injustice, beleiver vs. infidel, wealth, land, ...etc.
Point is: humans were always like that and will continue to be like that. A reason will be made up if one does not exist.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
I actually bothered to go read the link. You seem to be under the impression that this was never tired. It actually was tried by most of the communist revolutions that have taken place. However, in the end, they all decided on the same thing. Money is needed. The idea of having no money and everyone just doing what they can and sacrificing what they can is warm and fuzzy feeling, but it ignores the fact that money conveys information that is desperately needed.
For instance, I once worked in the paper industry. My company made a highly specialized conveyer belt that you need in order to process pulp into paper. First off, the number of people that I can think of that would want to make a conveyer belts for a living when they could be engineers working on say nanotechnology is nil, but lets assume I am just altruistic and this makes me happy (and to an extent it did, you wouldn't believe how much goes into making these things). In order to do my job a I needed a lot of things, mostly chemicals, but also hordes various pieces of highly specialized mechanical equipment. All of that highly specialized mechanical equipment then also needs more highly specialized pieces to make it, and the tools to make it. All of THOSE tools need more specialized tools and specialized machines to make them... so on and so forth in an infinite cycle. There isn't even a beginning to the cycle because in order to dig up out of the ground the stuff you need, someone needs tools to dig it up, and those tools require tools to make those tools... so on and so forth.
Price, and more specifically money, is the only reason why I was able to do my job. Without money, there would not have been any way for anyone to know to produce a certain chemical or a certain piece of machinery. The fact that my company was willing to drop a million dollars on a certain type of coating machine was a clear indication that we badly needed that coating machine and that if we got it, we wouldn't waste it. The fact that we sold our belts at hundred thousand dollars a pop (some times more) told the customer that a lot of work and energy went into building them and that they shouldn't arbitrarily waste them. The price we attached to our belts spelt out to them the uses of the belt. If we had sold them for 1 dollar a piece, then they would have assumed that they were free to experiment with and ruin the belts at will. The fact that we sold them for so much told them to be careful with how they used the belts.
In a moneyless world the economy breaks down. More specifically, technology breaks down. Our technology is so complicated and advanced that only the 'unseen' (capitalist) hand has any hope to get to everyone what they need. Even the most ardent socialist and communist recognize this and so leave badly distorted versions of capitalism intact.
Personally, I wouldn't worry. Capitalism will willingly destroy itself in the end, though not in the way Marx described. Capitalism will simply out produce itself. Capitalism is based around the idea that human work has value. What if a machine could do everything you could better, faster, and using less energy? Your work would no longer have value, the capitalist system would crash, and you would likely end up in a world where humans do nothing but relax and do whatever it is that makes them happy.
If you truly are into self sacrifice, then I would suggest throwing yourself into capitalism whole heartedly. Your great grand kids (or kids if you believe Raymond Kurzweil) will live in your utopia world that has no money, and they can do it without having to destroy technology and revert to a hunter/gathered society.
I also am a white American but was raised in California, which everybody knows isn't like the rest of the USA.
I was raised consuming "soft drinks" with ice.
But as an adult I don't like having ice in my drink. And I also genuinely feel less refreshed when I have ice in my drink.
So you went to England and expected things to be just like they are in FLORIDA? "lots of ice, fill the damned thing up with ice if you have to" --how could they? In hot semitropical american florida, there are these things called Ice Machines that produce tons of ice each day. In England, the machine that produces the ice is called a fridge, and they take a cube out of the tray. Or two.
Plus they have ideas of the Correct way to do things. They know how to serve their idea of whatever drink it is you ordered, and it doesn't include the filthy american habit of dumping a bunch of useless ice in there. For example, I drink scotch neat (that is, without ice, soda, water or whatever) and have the damndest time getting unpolluted whisky in cheap bars where every yahoo wants ice. But in the expensive bars it's fine but of course, expensive.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
You are awesome.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the US economic system relies on fear and uncertainty. People never have 'enough' because they don't have security.
To take just your one example, if everybody had paid sick leave, they wouldn't have to make that choice. (And they'd go home instead of infecting the rest of their workmates).
For years Australia had what I consider a healthy balance between capitalism and socialism - people were provided the basics (subsidized education, welfare, fairly secure employment, health etc.), and worked for the rest. This worked well, and for years Australia was one of the best places in the world to live.
Sadly, our current Prime Minister is in love with the American approach and is dragging us in that direction. What's the point in being the richest nation in the world if most of the population is too stressed, exhausted and nervous to enjoy it?
Thats my point
I was a bit vague, should have be more clean by saying : I find the writings of Rand, Dawkins, and Blackmore mutually supportive of each another.
Free Me! (http://www.freeme.org/)
d00D! U DISS3D T3H sTAR tREK!!! LOL! Incoming modb0m8z!!
No - that's god-ignoring. It is you who are filled with hate, for atheists. Despite your Christian rhetoric. I'll take the humans, warts and all, over your invisible imaginary monster, any day.
--
make install -not war
i regret that i have but one mind to loose for my ART. I feel it now begin to absorb me, to become me. this expansion of ego does not scare me. NO, in fact it drives me HARDER. in the beginning was THE LIE, and the lie shall set us loose. it shall free us from reality and BANALITY and the mundane, drudgingly pathetic thing we call BEAUTY. irony and the birth of the age of the ABSURD will release us, free us, tie us in the knots of FUN, childishness, and novel, retarded happiness. like monkeys at the zoo we will throw our now useless FECES at our captors. we will humiliate and denigrate those who force feed us FALSE CULTURE in the guise of all-knowing intelectuals, artists, ROCKSTARS, and movie moguls. submodern psuedo-intellectual artistic subvertion will rule the new collective unconsious. only things that NO ONE considers art, most of all the artist, will be art. logic and reason will be decimated by the hordes of astrologists, phrenologists, palmists, SEERS, mystics, yogis, cartoonists, comedians, demagogues and charlatans. symbols will ascend to metaphores and similies will descend to INANITIES.
BLAH BLAH BLAH will be our war cry, LA LA LA our funeral song.
RETARDED MONKEY MOTHER FUCKERS UNITE
you havenothing to loose but your mind
BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A blog about stuff.