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.'"
Are you saying the giant corporations might do something that's not in the interest of the public good?
__________
[Big Brick Wall]
I think the same can be said of a lot of Democracies these days.
"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.
What are you, a retard?
Yes.
Can you build your own computer?
Yes
And I'm not talking some 8-bit micro controller thing you cobbled together from parts you picked up at RadioShack.
Well, yes, I've built on of those... but I didn't get the parts at Radio Shack.
I'm asking, can you build, in your back yard from raw materials, a general purpose computer?
No I can not turn rocks, dirt, and dog feces from my yard into a computer.
I'm betting that, perhaps, one one-thousandth of the slashdot readership has even the beginnings of the capability to do that.
Everyone has the "beginnings of the capability" to do whatever the hell they want.
The rest of us are consumers however much we'd like to think of ourselves as somehow above the comman man.
Eh? Everyone consumes. No shame in that.
But the fact is we buy our equipment from big corporations.
You can buy all kinds of stuff from small corporations. Often better stuff than the big corps sell.
Those big corporations will take whatever steps are necessary to stay in business and prosper.
Good for them, but faced with a big enough threat, they won't.
If that means that the common computer goes the way of the dodo bird and more stringently controlled systems replace them, then that's what will happen.
Why does that have to happen?
Stop acting like you're some kind of god and that the rules of economics don't apply to you.
If I write you a check for a trillion dollars will you shut up? Or do I have to send a plague on you and your family?
Fucking moron.
Indeed. Sorry I piped up.
The rest of us are consumers however much we'd like to think of ourselves as somehow above the comman man. But the fact is we buy our equipment from big corporations. Those big corporations will take whatever steps are necessary to stay in business and prosper.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls and you're going to get rightly modded down to oblivion after I'm done writing this, but...
Big companies of today will try to keep the way they do business unchanged, until such time as the consumer will grow tired enough of their attitude that they'll vote with their wallets. When that happens, those companies one of two things:
- They will evolve and adopt the way consumers want them to do business, simply because it's in their best interest, if nothing else to survive.
- If they can't evolve, they will go the way of the dodo.
You can see the latter happening to media companies. They had their hayday, and they used to have a purpose, which is distributing intellectual material (music, movies...) by distributing the media they're stored on. Now that technology allows people to share the intellectual material without exchanging the physical media, media companies find themselves with no business case. They're superfluous and struggling to stay alive, but they won't be able to adapt, simply because they aren't needed anymore.
Now, in your example, nobody will need to build computers from scratch, because computer-making companies will adapt to whatever new way of distributing goods emerges. That's because, as you point out, people have a need for someone to manufacture computers for them.
I don't know what the new way of distributing/selling computers will be, and how it will happen, but rest assured that it will happen. The RIAAs and MPAAs of the world however will not be part of the new world, that's for sure. The only question is, how many victims will they make in their downfalls...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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
Haha. Ice vendors who have the financial and political muscle to outlaw fridges, send secret police around confiscating them, and poison your childrens' minds with "artificial refrigeration is an evil abomination" propaganda coming from "unconnected" think tanks.
Yes, don't worry at all.
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
No I can not turn rocks, dirt, and dog feces from my yard into a computer.
Amateur...
Free Image Hosting
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?
> 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.
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.