Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [decentralization] Groove centralizes

Expand Messages
  • cefn.hoile@bt.com
    Thanks, Jason. I will make the effort to look at this book. It sounds right up my street. Another interesting case of the emergence of Market economies from
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks, Jason. I will make the effort to look at this book. It sounds right
      up my street.

      Another interesting case of the emergence of Market economies from within
      strict command and control structures exists in Eastern Europe....

      "The countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union had a decidedly
      non-emergent, non-self-organized dictatorial socialism imposed upon them,
      first in 1917 and then in 1945. Starting in the early 1990s, they again were
      forced into a new form of social organization, what David Stark called a
      "designer capitalism". Neither form of utopian social engineering met with
      success. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that to the extent that any
      part of these economies works, it was not consciously designed, either by
      the apparatchiks of Gosplan (the Soviet Planning Commission) or by the
      professors from Harvard or other western institutions, but grew without
      anyone really guiding it or realizing what they were doing."

      From...

      http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Bulletins/bulletin-winter99/emergenc
      e2.html

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Jason L. Asbahr [mailto:jasbahr@...]
      Sent: 02 November 2001 18:49
      To: decentralization
      Subject: RE: [decentralization] Groove centralizes



      Interesting point. I think open source organizations do operate
      more in the marketplace mode, and in some cases, do show increased
      operational efficiency. (Please note, I'm not talking about your
      average group of 15 year olds writing yet another unfinished version
      of AIM, I'm talking about those collaborative efforts that continue
      to produce high quality software over the span of years, Python, Perl,
      the Linux kernel group, and Apache as the highest profile examples.)

      Another example is the "chaordic" model of organization, which
      was the model used by Visa and some claim the reason for its rapid
      worldwide growth. Dee Hock has a couple of books out about this
      concept, one of the more recent (and apparently lighter ones):

      Birth of the Chaordic Age
      by Dee W. Hock
      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1576750744/learningorg

      "He looks critically at today's environment of command-and-control
      institutions and sees organizations that are falling apart, failing
      to achieve their own purposes let alone addressing the diversity and
      complexity of society as a whole. The solution, Hock claims, lies in
      transforming our notion of organization; in embracing the belief that
      the chaos of competition and the order of cooperation can and do coexist,
      succeed, even thrive; and in welcoming in the chaordic age."

      Cheers,

      Jason




      -----Original Message-----
      From: cefn.hoile@... [mailto:cefn.hoile@...]
      Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 4:07 AM
      To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [decentralization] Groove centralizes


      From Todd: "Why do corporations work completely differently from the
      way open marketplaces function, within democratic society?"

      There is some interesting commentary in this area in the book 'The economic
      nature of the firm' (Louis Putterman ed.). The question is asked, why is the
      market/resource-constrained dynamic not used _within_ firms as a means of
      control? In other words, why are firms using command and control everywhere
      we look, and why are they not displaced by firms using market dynamics
      internally if its so efficient?

      Sadly I can't find my copy right now, otherwise I could give you some chunks
      from it.

      Anyway, the reference is available from...

      http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521556287/o/qid=1004695081/sr=8-1/
      ref=sr_aps_b_1_1/202-7499022-5179008

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Todd Boyle [SMTP:tboyle@...]
      > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 7:43 PM
      > To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [decentralization] Groove centralizes
      >
      > At 09:31 AM 11/1/01, Tony Kimball wrote to Scott,
      > >: http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO65038,00.html
      > >:
      > >: I don't think corporations like having content strewn out across all
      > >: of their user's PCs and is used to having things centralized where
      > >: they can control and monitor them.
      > >:
      > >: Does this hurt the viability of decentralized systems in the
      > >: corporate landscape?
      > >
      > >No, it improves the viability. Users do in fact have content strewn
      > >about the network -- not only content, but other valuable resources as
      > >well, such as devices, metadata, bandwidth, etc., Decentralized
      > >systems can harness that content, and make it usable as an enterprise
      > >resource, thus creating new managable asset.
      >
      > Corporations are command and control systems, of a type that
      > have been thoroughly and completely rejected by the populations
      > of every country on earth by now. Governments such as the soviet
      > union were spectacular failures.
      >
      > Why do corporations work completely differently from the way open
      > marketplaces function, within democratic society?
      >
      > When developers understand the answer to this question,
      > they will be more likely to write P2P software instead of
      > ever-more-powerful command and control systems.
      >
      > Corporations operate completely differently from civil society, to
      > achieve greater logistical efficiency, reliability and information
      > dissemination by controlling the behaviors of members, all
      > that stuff -- we have networks and computers and collaboration
      > software for these things today. Let's use them, to compete
      > as freemen instead of slaves. Freemen are always more
      > efficient than command systems. We'll make good money.
      >
      > Todd
      >
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decentralization/message/1819
      > ...types of decentralization, these are independent dimensions:
      >
      > - the data,
      > - pointers and indexes to the data,
      > - other metadata i.e. useful metadata like document schemas,
      > - the encryption keys and certificates,
      > - routes taken by data content across networks (P2P variations),
      > - routes taken by the pointing, indexing, metadata information,
      > - incentive topology ($ Corp, $hierarchic/MLM, $peer, mojo, volunteer...)
      > - capital structure (pooled/central, decentralized, or hierarch. steps)
      > - political and social rulemaking topology /hierarchy,
      > - actual technical control (actual sovereignty)
      > - content creation (added by Mitra)
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Sampo Syreeni
      ... I d say because freedom only works as long as the collective good coincides with what is best for each individual separately. When this is not the case, we
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 6, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Todd Boyle wrote:

        >Why do corporations work completely differently from the way open
        >marketplaces function, within democratic society?

        I'd say because freedom only works as long as the collective good
        coincides with what is best for each individual separately. When this is
        not the case, we speak about a tragedy of the commons. When it arises, it
        is usually solved via ownership. My theory is that this is what
        corporations are (or should be) about: they solve some particular instance
        of the tragedy of the commons on the marketplace, and so cannot function
        based on competition alone. Of course, competition and market based
        optimization are a valuable asset, too, which is why companies use
        internal billing, subcontractors and commonly externalize functions which
        are not part of the company's core operating area.

        But the core, that is under hierarchical control for a very simple reason:
        operating it in an autocratic fashion makes it possible to derive extra
        value from the market by optimizing across what would otherwise be a
        number of competing, uncooperative entities. Sometimes the ownership
        structure and the coercion it brings about is simply unavoidable if we
        wish cooperation.

        >When developers understand the answer to this question, they will be
        >more likely to write P2P software instead of ever-more-powerful command
        >and control systems.

        I'm not quite sure the reasoning behind corporate structures should be
        extended to software. After all, economics and money are about dealing
        with scarcity, and that has very little to do with P2P.

        I think just about the only relevant aspect, here, is that in P2P, the
        incentive to cooperate comes naturally in the form of network effects. We
        perhaps shouldn't try to supress it by competing in specific architectures
        or protocols, but document protocols openly and let people embrace and
        extend freely. It's quite likely that the best architecture would be left
        floating, in the end.

        Maybe we just shouldn't try to operate the P2P industry by the usual rules
        of the market, but instead put the market where it belongs, where there is
        scarcity. In the software industry, that is likely service, not technology
        itself.

        Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@..., tel:+358-50-5756111
        student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
        openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.