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.'"
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]
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.)?
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.
I think the same can be said of a lot of Democracies these days.
It's called the FREE MARKET, people!
The Philosophy of Liberty | lewrockwell.com
"Unconscious cooperation?" Why, it's almost as if it's being guided by...an "invisible hand!"
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.
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...)
Like which ones? I didn't know there were any since, like, Athens.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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
It wont be until we can let go of fear that we will be able to evolve into such a perfect 'Star Trek' society where people work for the sake of people, and money isn't used (yay geek reference). But this is semi-irrational since there will always be fear as long as there is death and suffering.
For this system to work would require a major percentage of the global populace to commit to two things. 1) Helping/Aiding others so that they do not suffer and 2) Stopping any single person or group from causing suffering.
So yes, the article has a nice theory behind it, but if I see it in my lifetime, or the lifetime of my great great grandkids, I will be amazed.
"I am the Black Mage! I casts the spells that makes the peoples fall down!" ~8BT
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
All that needs to be done is to abolish property and the state
Ok. We'll get right on that. Is next Friday soon enough, or do you need it earlier?
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.
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.
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
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!
The common thread, however, is that all these zealots justify their horrible acts with their irrational religious beliefs. It's easy to kill people after you dehumanize them with ideas like "they're going to hell anyway because they're not the chosen ones". Without religion, we would have far less barbaric acts.
Sure, sociopaths can do whatever they want without justification, but a simple "let's go kill some people" won't bring you any followers without some twisted justification.
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.
'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
And Ghengis Khan:
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.
As technology progresses, goods become more and more commodity, and even replace services. (Where once you hired a maid to come vacuum your floor, now you can buy a Roomba; where once you used the Roomba on your carpet, now you can install metabolic carpet that simply eats the dirt.) Consider the Recording industry and its fight against inevitablity. Why's it fighting so hard? Because its business model is based solely on the scarcity of physical media to store music on and control over distribution of those media. With P2P, that scarcity is obsolete.
Simply, it's incumbent upon businesses to reduce costs, one means of which comes from increased efficiency. Increased efficiency means lower cost per unit produced, which means either more units produced per unit cost, or fewer units produced -- another artificial scarcity. Seeing any knobs inevitably cranking towards zero here?
This is going to happen everywhere, even in our vaunted technology sector, where we're -- were -- paid the "big bucks" because we understood all this high-tech shit. Well, it's been demonstrated that genetic algorithms and such can, ultimately, design faster, more efficient, more powerful, &c chips than humans can. As that technology progresses, we'll have programs writing programs, too. We've got prototype Mickey-D's that don't have any humans at the counter: swipe your card, push some buttons, and then, finally, a person hands you your McNuggets or whatever -- and those humans are replaceable, too. It will, eventually, be cheaper to have some sort of robotic contraption flip your burger, wrap it up and hand it to you than it is to keep bodies on staff.
Intentionally or no, technology obsoletes scarcity, the fundamental thing upon which even the need for capital is based; everything's simply there. Without scarcity, what good is money? The very knob which needs to be cranked up for capitalism to be useful and, to the extent it is, beneficial to society is progressively, unstoppably being cranked down towards zero.
What happens then? Because either it's going to hit zero, or the next Dinosaur Killer's going to strike first, in which case it's all moot anyway. Foregoing the latter, WTF point will capitalism serve?
Now, I'm not remotely arguing that it's been unnecessary all along; we wouldn't be where we are unless the world had turned out exactly as it did. But we're only just beginning the creep into the post-scarcity age. What happens then? One way or another, there will always be some things that are scarce no matter what, but the fundamental fact is, scarcity is, itself, becoming scarce.
And, FTR, communism and socialism have always failed not because there's a market underneath, struggling to get out, but simply because of human greed, be it for wealth, power or whatever else. In a post-scarcity world, does greed even make sense?
A few years ago Stephen King was doing an experiment of an end-run around the publishing industry, and doing it wrong (possibly with the intention of poisoning that well for unknown authors, as a bone thrown to his publishing buddies). What he did wrong was to insist that a minimum percentage of downloaders should contribute. What he should have done was release each chapter in response to a total contribution for the previous one, regardless of the percentage. He required an honesty level that wasn't necessary for his business model, and which caused his experiment to "fail".
Most writers obviously don't have the creds of Stephen King. So suppose it's a few years ago and you're Cory Doctorow - you're a very good writer but you're not widely known (now watch as I get told that I was the only person on Earth not following his work for the last 20 years). You have a great idea for a wonderful book about immortality and Disneyland. I forget how many chapters it is, let's say twenty. You put the first four in the public domain and post them on your website. You announce you will post the next chapter when you've gotten contributions totalling some amount of money. If you're good, the contributions will roll in pretty quickly. Maybe you put a thermometer picture on your website to let readers know how close they are to seeing the next chapter.
If this works, the creator gets his money even though the entire work ends up in the public domain. It would be really interesting to see somebody try this.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
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?
Sounds great. Tell ya what - you go first. I'll hold onto your property while you're busy on that abolish-the-state thing.
> And once the majority of the people are not coerced to wage slavery or unemployment (as under capitalism) and have most of their time off to do what they want to do in addition to what little is needed to produce the basic essentials of life, everyone will be much better off.
Yes, we went over this. Neither of us are wage slaves, and during my free time, I hold onto your property. And you go and abolish the state.
> And to make people work, no oppression machinery like the state is needed, just social pressure.
So what are you waiting for? Gimme your stuff! What are you, some kinda chicken? :)
You didn't set this up for someone to argue that Buddhism fulfills perfectly this definition, did you?
a) Ridding of desire.
b) Termination of suffering of others.
c) Deals heavily in overcoming/coping fear of death and suffering.
This must have been set up.
it's because only Americans are stupid enough to pay money for frozen water?
(yes I'm joking, and American.)
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.
All US presidents have been "Christians", the current incumbent being one of the more outspoken ones.
Actually, that's not true. The "Founding Fathers", such as Washington, Jefferson, etc. were most likely Deists, if they even considered themselves as following a religion. Of course, the current Christian revisionist historians will swear up and down that "America was founded on Christianity", but it isn't true.
by it's very definition Science Fiction is....well, Fiction. Ofcourse this logically entails that all of the things described do not exist and never will. I mean, take this Jules Verne character, I mean, airplanes? submarines? pah, such nonsense, no way. or this whole psychohistory babble this Asimov person brought up...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Right, let's drag both Hitler and religion into the conversation. Why do you hate this thread?
Let's rephrase what you just said: I mean, some places *said* they were communists, but North Korea also calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". That still doesn't make North Korea a republic, a democracy or people's anything.
--
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
Actually, that's not true. The "Founding Fathers", such as Washington, Jefferson, etc. were Christians, even if they frowned upon some aspects of organized religion at at the time. Of course, the current atheist revisionist historians will swear up and down that "America wasn't founded on Christianity", but it isn't true
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.
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!
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.