[From Mike Acree
(2009.05.30.2019 PDT)]
Wired
by Kevin Kelly
"Bill Gates once
derided open source advocates with the worst epithet
a capitalist can muster. These
folks, he said, were a 'new modern-day
sort of communists,’ a
malevolent force bent on destroying the
monopolistic incentive that
helps support the American dream. Gates
was wrong: Open source
zealots are more likely to be libertarians than
commie pinkos. Yet there is
some truth to his allegation. The frantic
global rush to connect
everyone to everyone, all the time, is quietly
giving rise to a revised
version of socialism." (05/22/09)
http://tinyurl.com/p65bnz
The usual disclaimers
applying, that Kevin Kelly is not a PCT theorist, I thought this article might
be interesting to those interested in social organization. Kelly is not
the first to notice the splendid success of socialism in the intellectual realm—Linux,
Wikipedia, etc.; Boldrin and Levine recently published Against Intellectual
Property (http://www.mises.org/store/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-P552.aspx),
making a highly readable and to my mind persuasive argument in that
regard. (That appraisal represents a shift in my thinking from only 10
years ago, when I argued in this forum—in case anyone is keeping track—for
patents and copyrights, having been recently influenced then by Douglass
North.) Kelly clearly envisions with some enthusiasm an extension of that
model to other realms. In this respect I think he has insufficiently
appreciated a condition he mentions only in passing, but I wouldn’t mind
being proved wrong. I’m not particularly concerned either to
criticize or defend Kelly; I pass along his article just because his vision
appeared to me similar to that of some others on the Net.
Mike
[From Richard Kennaway (2009.05.31.11:17 BST)]
[From Mike Acree (2009.05.30.2019 PDT)]
Wired
by Kevin Kelly
"Bill Gates once derided open source advocates with the worst epithet
a capitalist can muster. These folks, he said, were a 'new modern-day
sort of communists,' a malevolent force bent on destroying the
monopolistic incentive that helps support the American dream. Gates
was wrong: Open source zealots are more likely to be libertarians than
commie pinkos. Yet there is some truth to his allegation. The frantic
global rush to connect everyone to everyone, all the time, is quietly
giving rise to a revised version of socialism." (05/22/09)
The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online | WIRED
Whatever it is, it is not socialism, which Kevin Kelly tries to redefine as "the best word to indicate a range of technologies that rely for their power on social interactions." But that is not what "socialism" has ever meant. "Socialism" means forms of government in which the means of production and distribution are collectively owned.
Wikipedia is not a socialist activity, it is a dictatorship run by Jimmy Wales. That is not to say that it is a bad thing; but it is to say that it is not a socialist thing. Digg is not owned by its contributors. Neither is StumbleUpon. Neither is the Hype Machine. Neither is Twine. Neither is WetPaint. All of these enterprises could shut up shop overnight if their owners chose. There is no collective ownership of anything. These are his examples of "socialism".
As some of the commenters on that page say, calling social activities socialist makes about as much sense as calling fashionable activities fascist.
···
--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
[From Mike Acree (2009.05.31.1145 PDT)]
Richard Kennaway (2009.05.31.11:17 BST)--
Whatever it is, it is not socialism, which Kevin Kelly tries to
redefine as "the best word to indicate a range of technologies that
rely for their power on social interactions." But that is not what
"socialism" has ever meant. "Socialism" means forms of government in
which the means of production and distribution are collectively owned.
Wikipedia is not a socialist activity, it is a dictatorship run by
Jimmy Wales. That is not to say that it is a bad thing; but it is to
say that it is not a socialist thing. Digg is not owned by its
contributors. Neither is StumbleUpon. Neither is the Hype Machine.
Neither is Twine. Neither is WetPaint. All of these enterprises
could shut up shop overnight if their owners chose. There is no
collective ownership of anything. These are his examples of
"socialism".
As some of the commenters on that page say, calling social activities
socialist makes about as much sense as calling fashionable activities
fascist.
Thanks, Richard. I totally agree, but it's more satisfying to hear
one's points made by someone else. I had actually not finished editing
my message, but hit some combination of keys which to my surprise
resulted in a send, and didn't have a rescind key.
I am also much less optimistic that Kelly that the kinds of organization
he celebrates with information will ever work, on a general scale, with
material goods, which have an ultimate consumer. He acknowledges in
passing that they may well require a hierarchical organization, but I am
not sure he has really grasped the implications.
Mike
[From Dick Robertson,2009.05.31.1708CDT]
[From Mike Acree (2009.05.31.1145 PDT)]
I am also much less optimistic that Kelly that the kinds of
organizationhe celebrates with information will ever work, on a
general scale, with
material goods, which have an ultimate consumer. He
acknowledges in
passing that they may well require a hierarchical organization,
but I am
not sure he has really grasped the implications.
In order for the kind of free collaboration that Kelley cites in the various groups contributing to open source development and so on, we can’t overlook the fact that they must all have had a source of income so they could eat while giving away their time to these enterprises. I doubt they were all (even many of them) rich philanthropists. Maybe some even got indirect income sources from their free work. It would be interesting to know just how they were supported. Probably a lot of them had government jobs, and contributed on the side.
There is an interesting issue that relates indirectly to this story, and that is that perhaps more and more people will eventually be doing free work, if pensioned off one way or another. It is getting very apparent that the whole world is in a chronic state of having more workers than jobs, and I think this will onlly increase as a problem as robotics take over more and more work.
At the same time there are enough resources, in food and other necessities that most if not all nations could have, by industry- what people like the polynesians had by nature. That is that basic life needs could be available without everyone working. It would take a paradigm revolution in Western beliefs about fairness and personal responsibility and all that before we would ever get such arrangements
What would/will surplus people do? I think many would find constructive ways to contribute to society anyway. Of course if you hold the -let’s say- Dick Cheney view of capitalism, then people should find work or starve, because if freely provided with necessities they will all sit on their asses and do nothing. Such people have been found in various untopian communities and blamed for their eventual collapse. I’m not sure they have ever amounted to a large enough proportion to account for the collapse.
Best,
Dick R.
[From Fred Nickols (2009.05.31.1555 PDT)]
There is an interesting issue that relates indirectly to this story, and that is
that perhaps more and more people will eventually be doing free work, if
pensioned off one way or another. It is getting very apparent that the whole
world is in a chronic state of having more workers than jobs, and I think this
will onlly increase as a problem as robotics take over more and more work.
A couple of comments. This was foreseen at least as far back as 1982 when I was working with Booz-Allen to install an automated claims processing system in a health insurer. Some of us on the project were speculating about the continuation of automation and mechanization and wondering what are we going to do with all those people (referring to all those who were going to be put out of work by automation and mechanization). So far as I know, there's still no answer to that question.
A likely consequence of the continuation of the loss of paid work seems to me to be a lowering of the standard of living in developed countries and the raising of the standard of living in developing countries. There is a great "flattening" going on. The haves won't like it and the have-nots will love it.
At the same time there are enough resources, in food and other necessities that
most if not all nations could have, by industry- what people like the
polynesians had by nature. That is that basic life needs could be available
without everyone working. It would take a paradigm revolution in Western beliefs
about fairness and personal responsibility and all that before we would ever get
such arrangements
Right after that paradigm revolution will have to come a regular old revolution of the violent overthrow of the government kind because it is government that will have to change and change radically to effect that kind of shift.
With luck, I'll be dead before the crap hits the fan.
···
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Robertson Richard <R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU>
--
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us
"Assistance at A Distance"