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.'"
I think the same can be said of a lot of Democracies these days.
But then I looked around and all I saw was people clawing their way to the top, stepping on each other in a futile grab for something they couldn't reach: "enough." Nobody ever has enough in this society. Nobody has enough money, enough respect or enough love. We are a society of maximizers, always worried about what we're giving up for having something else. "I could take a sick day now, but I have to make my car payment." "I don't like my job, but I'll stay there and be miserable because other jobs don't pay enough."
It won't work on a global scale. All it would take is one person taking advantage of another for the whole thing to collapse.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
We don't even have a FAIR capitalistic society yet.
I'll bet you're thinking of something like "The American Dream", which is the dream of a "fair" capitalistic society. Or Utopia, which is in theory where the socialism/communism/capitalism models are supposed to evolve to.
Capitalism by definition isn't necessarily supposed to be fair - it's an economic model that states that anyone is allowed to make money. It means that evil corporations are still allowed the make the same money in the same market that good ol' Joe is (substitute whatever David vs. Goliath story you wish - NewPunkBand vs RIAA, Consumers vs. BigCorporations, Linux vs. Microsoft, etc..etc.etc). It just so happens that currently (and many,many,many times in the past) politics are helping the bigger evil corporations make money easier than good ol' Joe, because they are big enough to get some law on their side.
Howard Rheingold is making the point that these big evil corporations are depending on what he believes is an outdated "version" of the capitalistic economic model, which is that since they need to control the distribution of their particular product/service in order to make money, the only way they can make that happen when technology gets in the way is to get laws passed against it. That can't "bail them out" forever, especially when other countries that aren't necessarily interested in following that economic model get involved.
If greed motivates the average human (which it does), then the way for this type of "social revolution" to work is for everyone involved have something to gain by the collective participation of everyone. The "greed factor" could be that people start to learn in an very Pavlov-like-way that the more they contribute to making the collective model work, the better it works for them. It might take some time, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
But then again I've had a few beers, so maybe I'm just dreaming...:)
I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
Please repeat after me: capitalism with a hundred thousand government rules and regulations functions the same way as communism. a + 100000*b = c.
Is that a statement I somehow missed while reading Marxist literature?
A capitalist system, even a protective one such as the one found in the U.S., encourages corporations to maximize their profits, and even to be exploitive. In a communist economy, state owned monopolies protect the proletariat at the expense of profits and efficiency.
An effective signature identifies a particular user amongst a base of thousands.
'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
Right! You are! No one else would talk about the current election with two parties, leaving out the name of the country and other details, and assume to be understood- but an American. (Ok, I'll cut you some slack: this *is* slashdot, which is located in the US
Now, you know, a lot of the "rest of the world" isn't quite as paranoid about other people wanting to steal their stuff. A lot of us actually believe that the vast majority of the time, most people like to cooperate. And there are enough people that like to act ethically that things like wikipedia and open-source can actually work. Heck, not just work, they can work better than your cut-throat capitalism.
Oh, I should mention this while I'm ranting: the US economy's fortunes have very little to do with your brand of aggressive capitalism. If anything, you're doing well despite it. In the first part of the last century, you folks had a lot of oil, which is essential for fuelling an industrial economy and war machine. That's all. Just like England became wealthy with coal, you became wealthy because of oil- just an accident of history, really.
I believe St. Francis explained that having wealth made you fearful, and wanting to protect it. It was easier for him just to renounce material wealth, so he wouldn't have to worry.
Now, this is a crucial point: the US has been in decline now for some 30 years as an economic power. Your GDP goes up, but you people aren't any happier. This wealth that you accumulated is causing you some nasty "cognitive dissonnance", and you're choosing to resolve it by believing odd notions- like you're somehow superior, and the rest of the world is after you. Not so.
There is no problem with these other economic systems so long as they do not require coercion. People obviously ARE willing to contribute to things like wikipedia, distributed proofreaders, open source projects, peace brigades international, etc, etc... These things WORK. Who are you to say that human nature is evil, in the face of such feats? Humans sure are capable of incredible, unspeakable barbarity. But that's only human realization, quite distinct from human nature, which includes the possibility of either realization. And some systems invite certain types of realization: authoritarian systems invite barbary, systems that give status in exchange for contribution reward giving.
It's not selfless in the dualistic way that is present in judeo-christian (well, mostly christian) morality. The gift economy can't be seen as either selfless or selfish- more like enlightened self-interest. Contribute to a good OSS project, see your ability to charge high consulting fees go up. Neither selfless, nor selfish (or maybe both?)
Ah, there you have it: as far as IP goes, we do have nearly unlimited production capacity. Economists had to come up with the idea of augmenting returns; it's so damned cheap to copy bits that marginal costs keep decreasing. You can't deprive the other guy by making a copy (well, unless you're counting on licensing...).
There's no need. We only need a system that invites better realizations, and that's something that's become possible with a new mode of production. It's a rare thing in human history to be witnesses to such a massive change. That said, I'm afraid a lot of Americans are going to be too afraid to partake in this movement because your accidental wealth has warped your vision, making you see human nature as dark as your leaders manifest it.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
Except that these companies now have the cash and the clout to buy enough congressman to pass laws outlawing innovation that might do away with their business model. As technology advances the laws must become more draconian in order to try to force a stable state on unstable conditions, but so far they seem to have the means required to keep passing those laws.
Free market economics only works in a free market. The United States isn't anywhere close to a free market, and hasn't been anywhere close since the early days of the Republic. The less free the market, the easier it is for vested interests to use the government to maintain their positions of power and status. They're so good at it, in fact, that they managed to take a commodity which is now anything but scarce and make it artificially scarce in the face of a technological tidal wave moving in the opposite direction.
The RIAA, MPAA, Disney, and others like them have proven that they can stand against both the market and technological advancement and at the very least win a reprieve. I can't think of a single other instance in U.S. history where a conglomeration of companies have had the power to stall technological advancement and changing economic structures, but this is precisely what they have done.
I'd put my faith in the free market if we actually had one. But we don't.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
That's not the only reason socialism fails. People are more productive with incentives to encourage them, and capitalism results in many more incentives for the average person to be productive. (note that incentives are not necessarily rewards; negative consequences are incentives too...) Since incentives and equality are mutually exclusive, a socialist society dedicated to equality won't be as productive as a capitalist society, and it will fall behind.
Idealistic yes. Communism can have the same things, rewards for qoutas met ect.. like a unionized job. There is nothing inherintly better about capitalism. It has as much to do with circumstances, leaders, population behavioral patterns as it does the system.
Capatalism won, because computers happened along the scene and gave the capatalists a huge production increase, while the communists didn't anticipate this and didn't gear their production in a similiar fashion. They aimed for gaols that become superflous. They aimed to outprodous the US in steel. Which in the early and mid industrial era, meant they'd have more tanks, more guns, more eveything. The communists centralized planning methods failed to properly incorporate electronics and they become fell behind. The US had a decentralized system, so when they came along, they switched productions.
But the soviets accomplished a lot. So did the Americans. In no way did communism fail. No more then Democracy can fail. They are just idealogical systems. They are never implemented ideally and thus never behave ideally. The russians stopped supporting that system, and it is no longe rin use. But the achievements of the soviets is just as stagering as the achivements of the Americans, who both stole much of the base of these achivements formt he germans.
Capatalism is just an idea. There is no pure capatalist system because people will not stand for a purely greed driven society. Even the most capatalistic societies have some provisions for the poor and ample regulations. Marx was a interesting but idealistic hippie, and Smith was a idealistic moron. If you want a true economic system that works, try Keynes. As Nixon put it "We're all keynsians now".
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
> AT&T's monopoly was dismembered.
And the ILEC's today cumulatively have more power than AT&T ever did, extending beyond POTS into cellular and broadband. All made possible by cash flow from their POTS monopoly.
> Standard Oil's monopoly was dismembered.
But the dismembered portions were all owned by the same people who owned Standard Oil. What's more, the dismembered portions together made more money that the original Standard Oil.
Identity decentralization != Financial decentralization.
> Labor unions were established.
Talked to the pilots' union at Delta recently? How about United Airlines? Their pensions are not looking too good -- coming soon to a union near you.
> The weekend was created.
Are you classified as a salaried technology professional? Then your hours do not qualify for overtime. In fact, they may not qualify for time, depending on your employer.
Americans in unions are very interested in excercising their political power, what's left of it. But don't stay up late waiting for your 401K to lobby Washington for your children's future.