NationStates Jolt Archive

Perhaps no one notices but I'm a serious proponent of the idea that the Internet will bring about social and political change far beyond what we're currently seeing - that the real communist revolution can only come about when there's equal access to information for all and that this is what the Internet empowers.

Information is the final 'property' that makes a lawyer a lawyer and a farmer a farmer.

This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2162394,00.html) article may well be too long for most people to slough through so I'll try break down the ideas into easy to eat morsels starting with:

Ronald Coase had noticed something odd about capitalism. The received wisdom, among western economists, was that individuals should compete in a free market: planned economies, such as Stalin's, were doomed. But in that case, why did huge companies exist, with centralised operations and planning? The Ford Motor Company was hailed as a paragon of American business, but wasn't the Soviet Union just an attempt to run a country like a big company? If capitalist theory was correct, why didn't Americans, or British people, just do business with each other as individual buyers and sellers in the open market, instead of organising themselves into firms?

The answer was that collaboration was required to make things and that only companies could secure the resources to acquire the people necessary to achieve this.

When a major multinational firm such as Procter & Gamble needs to develop a new cleaning product, it sometimes posts its requirements on InnoCentive, rather than relying on in-house researchers. Crucially, it offers a payment for a successful solution. "If they're looking for a new molecule to take red wine off a shirt - well, you do the math," Tapscott says. "They have 9,000 scientists inside their company boundaries, and 1.5m outside their boundaries. And sure enough, there's a retired chemist in London, or a grad student in Taipei, who comes up with a molecule, and they get paid."

So the question is: will the Internet bring about true Communism because companies are no longer required and each individual can truly provide their worth in terms of knowledge given true freedom of information is available to all?

If Ronald Coase's 1937 insight remains valid, we could yet see the day when big companies such as Google begin to look rather prehistoric -because they are still, after all, big companies.

Can the same happen with political bodies?

A follow up example of a community industry:

Take the Chinese motorcycle industry, which has tripled its output to 15m bikes per year over the past decade. There aren't really any Chinese equivalents of the big Japanese and American firms - Honda or Harley. Instead, there are hundreds of small firms, many of them based in Chongquing, the world's fastest-growing metropolis. Their representatives meet in tea-houses, or collaborate online, each sharing knowledge, and contributing the parts or services they do best. The companies that assemble the finished products don't hire the other companies; assembling the finished product is just another service. A "self-organised system of design and production" has emerged - the kind of system we usually associate with phenomena in cyberspace, like Wikipedia, or software released without copyright, so that others can tweak and improve it, such as the web browser Firefox. The Chinese motorcycle industry, in other words, is "open source".

The Chinese motorcycle industry, in other words, is "open source".

And that's precisely why we won't see a socialized industry like that in the West. Most firms jealously guard their copyrights, and they simply lack the community mentality that Chinese entrepreneurs have.

Or to put it simply, the lack of "My idea! Mine! Grrr!" attitude.

I'm only going to say this once. Nothing any good ever came out of "open sores".

A follow up example of a community industry:

Take the Chinese motorcycle industry, which has tripled its output to 15m bikes per year over the past decade. There aren't really any Chinese equivalents of the big Japanese and American firms - Honda or Harley. Instead, there are hundreds of small firms, many of them based in Chongquing, the world's fastest-growing metropolis. Their representatives meet in tea-houses, or collaborate online, each sharing knowledge, and contributing the parts or services they do best. The companies that assemble the finished products don't hire the other companies; assembling the finished product is just another service. A "self-organised system of design and production" has emerged - the kind of system we usually associate with phenomena in cyberspace, like Wikipedia, or software released without copyright, so that others can tweak and improve it, such as the web browser Firefox. The Chinese motorcycle industry, in other words, is "open source".



Considering the Party's general stance toward cyberspace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield) (including Wikipedia and "open source"), I wonder why this "self-organised system" hasn't been crushed yet. "Open" and "self-organised" things being dangerous to social stability, the children, and what not.

Considering how quickly entrepreneurs have been, and are, pouring into the Party, I'm rather skeptical that...


And that's precisely why we won't see a socialized industry like that in the West. Most firms jealously guard their copyrights, and they simply lack the community mentality that Chinese entrepreneurs have.

Or to put it simply, the lack of "My idea! Mine! Grrr!" attitude.


...they have any such "community mentality" at all.

And that's precisely why we won't see a socialized industry like that in the West. Most firms jealously guard their copyrights, and they simply lack the community mentality that Chinese entrepreneurs have.

Or to put it simply, the lack of "My idea! Mine! Grrr!" attitude.

Except...

The gold mine at Red Lake in Ontario, operated by Goldcorp, was ailing and facing collapse until its chief executive Rob McEwen heard a talk about Linus Torvalds, the Finnish inventor of the open-source computer operating system, Linux. Why not place Goldcorp's secret geological data on the internet, McEwen wondered, and see if there were experts outside the company who could suggest where to mine? The 'Goldcorp Challenge' reaped handsome profits, turning a company worth $100m into one worth $9bn.

It's easy to posit that any company that doesn't go 'open source' will place itself at a competitive disadvantage, thus hurrying its own demise.

I should say that I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that patents, although originally useful, are rapidly becoming a hamper to progress as well.

I've asked for a title change because 'Socialist' is not what I'm looking for - in fact, my worry about 'open source' government is that there's no safety net for those who find themselves unable to contribute, although my suspicion that old-fashioned charity may take its place.

Considering the Party's general stance toward cyberspace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield) (including Wikipedia and "open source"), I wonder why this "self-organised system" hasn't been crushed yet. "Open" and "self-organised" things being dangerous to social stability, the children, and what not.

Yeah, I think the connection hasn't really been made - or the lure of money-making overrides the consideration of the ultimate consequences of empowering individuals in this way.

SOEs in China were a good means of controlling the population because under the danwei system, your company chose your apartment, your position, whether you could get married and if being troublesome affected that, you did not have the luxury of going against the system because the danwei system also controlled your ability to leave whichever SOE you were in.

China have just introduced 'virtual policemen' - this consists of a button on all sites, an icon of 2 police and pressing that icon allows you to directly report that site to authorities.

The greatest weapon the Communist Party had were the Chinese people - if you can get the people to mistrust everyone around them, it makes it much harder to organize dissent against the government itself.

The Internet will change this - Chinese people are more aware of mirror sites and cheats to get around the firewall than anyone.

I'm only going to say this once. Nothing any good ever came out of "open sores".


Excepting, of course, the the most popular web server software in use (http://www.apache.org/).


Market Share for Top Servers Across All Domains August 1995 - September 2007

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/09/overallc.gif

( http://news.netcraft.com/ )


Stupid communist Internet.

The Internet will change this - Chinese people are more aware of mirror sites and cheats to get around the firewall than anyone.


I wrote a term paper on this very topic for a Chinese politics class at my university this last quarter. The stack of articles I reviewed supporting your position is just as tall as the stack which disagree.

I tend to agree with the latter stack. The Party will put the brakes on everything, including economic development, if it keeps them on top of the political stack. This has always been party policy, producing a cycle of liberalization that only leads to a crack down (100 Flowers, Democracy Wall, etc.), and the Internet won't do too much about that.

...they have any such "community mentality" at all.

You're looking at small time business communities and comparing it to an autocratic, corrupt political structure?

I'm not saying that they're all like that, hardly. But compare small time American business startups and their reaction to intellectual infringement and equally small time Chinese business startups.

Except...

Not quite the same application is it? When comparing the Chinese example to this one?

*hukou is not the right word - I'll remember the right word soon but it'll do for now.

Sounds right to me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou).

EDIT:

Last edited by Barringtonia : Today at 9:16 AM. Reason: Replaced hukou with danwei


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danwei

Ah, related but different.

internet socialism ftw

My title is about my enfuriation with APEC.

I wrote a term paper on this very topic for a Chinese politics class at my university this last quarter. The stack of articles I reviews supporting your position is just as tall as the stack which disagree.

I tend to agree with the latter stack. The Party will put the brake on everything, including economic development, if it keeps them on top of the political stack. This has always been party policy, producing a cycle of liberalization that only leads to a crack down (100 Flowers, Democracy Wall, etc.), and the Internet won't do too much about that.

I can't agree.

More than most countries, the Chinese have embraced and are building businesses out of the Internet - from trading on Taobao to designing software. QQ, a Messenger type program is fantastically huge - there's simply too much discussion going on, too much information getting out for the tide to be turned back and I think the party recognizes this.

I think the trend will follow that of Taiwan to some extent, where an authoritarian party gradually allows more and more democracy until open elections are simply a necessity. It's like a mudslide.

Tian'anmen was the last of the crackdowns, information was still controlled within China and there's many Chinese people who simply don't know the facts of a 20 year old issue - I just don't see it happening again.

I can't agree.

More than most countries, the Chinese have embraced and are building businesses out of the Internet - from trading on Taobao to designing software. QQ, a Messenger type program is fantastically huge - there's simply too much discussion going on, too much information getting out for the tide to be turned back and I think the party recognizes this.

I think the trend will follow that of Taiwan to some extent, where an authoritarian party gradually allows more and more democracy until open elections are simply a necessity. It's like a mudslide.

Tian'anmen was the last of the crackdowns, information was still controlled within China and there's many Chinese people who simply don't know the facts of a 20 year old issue - I just don't see it happening again.

I really truly hope that I'm wrong, but I still feel rather skeptical. So long as the international order is willing to tolerate the Party so long as it allows access to the international market, I don't see the Party's power decreasing too much. In theory, trade is supposed to spread freedom. But, Western technology companies have proven themselves too willing to contribute the equipment and know-how necessary for the Chinese authorities to counter Internet based dissent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#International_corporations).

The Party wants to gain legitimacy through economic development (again, as has always been policy) and the "free" world seems all to eager to comply if it will make a buck.

Seeing as how the biggest player in that international market doesn't really know too (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313) much about freedom itself (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml), my skepticism just gets worse.

I really truly hope that I'm wrong, but I still feel rather skeptical. So long as the international order is willing to tolerate the Party so long as it allows access to the international market, I don't see the Party's power decreasing too much. In theory, trade is supposed to spread freedom. But, Western technology companies have proven themselves too willing to contribute the equipment and know-how necessary for the Chinese authorities to counter Internet based dissent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#International_corporations).

The Party wants to gain legitimacy through economic development (again, as has always been policy) and the "free" world seems all to eager to comply if it will make a buck.

Seeing as how the biggest player in that international market doesn't really know too (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313) much about freedom itself (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml), my skepticism just gets worse.

Right - I'm not sure I want this sidetracked into a discussion of China though I do feel it's a huge testing ground for how the Internet will change society to a great extent.

The Party's reaction is a result of the flow of information that it sees, information that is being sought by the people and, as the hacking into Western governments has shown, no information can be kept that safe - on the Internet, there's practically always a way around it.

The demand for information could be contained without the Internet when set press was written daily under Party control.

Yet the Internet allows for contribution as well as accessing information - anyone can contribute and often anonymously - if only to the extent that there's so much information being contributed daily that it's too hard to stay on top of it all.

Open Source shows how information, no matter the technology, whether it's the Apple i-phone or MS code, it's hackable and extractable and shareable.

This is what's happening - and that doesn't count the fact that people are able to travel more and more freely as well.

Information will drive change, which is the original point of the thread. I think that will be shown in China far more than elsewhere to some extent.

Not quite the same application is it? When comparing the Chinese example to this one?

It's in the same ballpark I think - the point is the sharing of information, in one case to create an industry by each player performing their own small part and sharing knowledge and services and the one by sharing internal information to gain the services of more players.

I'm still unable to work out how this translates into a new political system.

I'm having to go down the road of smaller communal politics of the type AP and others often promote.

Yet that communal politics still gains the advantage of the entire world pitching in on a problem.

The only software I have technically brought is the stuff that was already installed on my computer when I brought it, such as XP, anti-virus etc, but apart from that I haven't brought any programs, I downloaded them all, I consider it my duty to give as little as possible to those greedy capitalists, and to put them out of my money as much as possible, if everyone did this we could genuinely hurt them, and that's a good thing!

I doubt the Internet will lead to communism. I'm not going to read everything about China bit I think the Internet will lead to a better capitalistic market. Flexible networks of small entrepreneurs will be able to cooperate and adapt so quickly big bulky corporations can't keep up. It will also spread information to everyone and thus lower the entry level of markets that require knowledge. Many small competitors and low entry level is better for the market then few big competitors and high entry level.

The only software I have technically brought is the stuff that was already installed on my computer when I brought it, such as XP, anti-virus etc, but apart from that I haven't brought any programs, I downloaded them all, I consider it my duty to give as little as possible to those greedy capitalists, and to put them out of my money as much as possible, if everyone did this we could genuinely hurt them, and that's a good thing!
If you're using their software you're still helping them even if you don't pay for it. Bill Gates (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2098235.ece) prefers if people pirate their software instead of using alternative products. Even pirates contribute to the network effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect) of the software they are using. If everyone uses Windows then thats what PC vendors will buy to put on their PCs. If everyone already uses MS Office then thats what companies will buy and buy support for unless they want to waste time retraining employees for another product. If everyone uses MSN then thats what you'll have to use to chat with them, at least if you want to be cool and use all the silly special features.

So if you don't want to help "them" then don't use their products at all.

I doubt the Internet will lead to communism. I'm not going to read everything about China bit I think the Internet will lead to a better capitalistic market. Flexible networks of small entrepreneurs will be able to cooperate and adapt so quickly big bulky corporations can't keep up. It will also spread information to everyone and thus lower the entry level of markets that require knowledge. Many small competitors and low entry level is better for the market then few big competitors and high entry level.

I'm thinking of Communism under the term 'each to their own, each according to their ability'.

There's a good Australian concept called Bartercard whereby you trade services for credits - so, for example, a plumber can gain credits for work provided to a lawyer and trade those for service from a electrician and so on.

If you have open information, a lot more people gain the ability to provide services and therefore earn 'credits' for whatever service they can provide, whether that's physical or cerebral. I can specialize or I can generalize.

This also devalues the price differential for services to create a more even system.

If you tie this in with local community politics, which do not bind services but merely make local decisions, then you're getting a very flat society...

...I think.

I'm thinking of Communism under the term 'each to their own, each according to their ability'.

There's a good Australian concept called Bartercard whereby you trade services for credits - so, for example, a plumber can gain credits for work provided to a lawyer and trade those for service from a electrician and so on.

If you have open information, a lot more people gain the ability to provide services and therefore earn 'credits' for whatever service they can provide, whether that's physical or cerebral. I can specialize or I can generalize.

This also devalues the price differential for services to create a more even system.

If you tie this in with local community politics, which do not bind services but merely make local decisions, then you're getting a very flat society...

...I think.
Yeah I always liked that idea, I think without using a big system of bookkeeping this is a good way to catalog values of labour.

It's in the same ballpark I think - the point is the sharing of information, in one case to create an industry by each player performing their own small part and sharing knowledge and services and the one by sharing internal information to gain the services of more players.

I'm not sure. Your example was more along the lines of "We're stumped. Lets offer a reward for an answer."

The contribution of other people are single shots.

The one in China is more of a sustained involvement level to create an infrastructure that would have been impossible without a large firm or equally large communal effort.

Perhaps no one notices but I'm a serious proponent of the idea that the Internet will bring about social and political change far beyond what we're currently seeing - that the real communist revolution can only come about when there's equal access to information for all and that this is what the Internet empowers.
But not all people ar equally equipped to make use of that information.

So true communist equality will not ensue. Dumb people will still fail as long as they are permitted to make their own decisions.

Socialism will never work because there's no incentive to work. Take it from someone who has relatives in ex-Soviet countries; half the week they'd sit on their asses and get drunk instead of going to work, and still got full pay.

Why the hell do people always talk about bringing about change? There is no reason to change! When someone makes a better system than Western free-market, then we'll talk, but right now socialism is a step backwards.

Perhaps no one notices but I'm a serious proponent of the idea that the Internet will bring about social and political change far beyond what we're currently seeing - that the real communist revolution can only come about when there's equal access to information for all and that this is what the Internet empowers.

I sincerely hope you're wrong, but I'm not worried about it. There will never be "equal access to information for all." You and I will simply never have the resources available to large organizations, like governments and military. And even if so, why would "Total Information Awareness," as it were, bring about communism? Are you so egotistical about your belief that you think the only thing preventing everyone else from sharing it, is that they are ignorant?

Information is the final 'property' that makes a lawyer a lawyer and a farmer a farmer.

Uh, no. A lawyer is a lawyer because of the service he provides, the skills he has and because he wants to. A farmer the same, and because he happens to have access to... a farm.


So the question is: will the Internet bring about true Communism because companies are no longer required and each individual can truly provide their worth in terms of knowledge given true freedom of information is available to all?

No.

I'm thinking of Communism under the term 'each to their own, each according to their ability'.

Nice phrase. Relatively meaningless. Its as applicable to other forms of government and economies as communism. More so, perhaps. I think its just more communist egotism.

There's a good Australian concept called Bartercard whereby you trade services for credits - so, for example, a plumber can gain credits for work provided to a lawyer and trade those for service from a electrician and so on.

If you have open information, a lot more people gain the ability to provide services and therefore earn 'credits' for whatever service they can provide, whether that's physical or cerebral. I can specialize or I can generalize.


Yeah, barter. What a great concept, why didn't anyone think of it before?

Do you think calling a currency a "credit" is the same as instituting a form of communism? That specialization or generalization in terms of economic opportunity is a communist trait and not any other?


This also devalues the price differential for services to create a more even system.

Yeah, so find me a lawyer who's willing to work for the same amount of credits as a plumber. And I'll find you a total idiot.

Communism would only occur if there were no scarcity, and even then I doubt people would share simply because something else would rise to take the place of physical goods and services. Now, the internet can reduce some forms of scarcity, but as of yet it is incapable of eliminating them.

In regard to the China model, you have to look in to it more deeply before making conclusions on it. How much innovation is occurring in that market? How many of those designs are unique and not just ripoffs of Western models in a very lax IP regulatory framework? How subsidized and protected from external competition are they?

The answer was that collaboration was required to make things and that only companies could secure the resources to acquire the people necessary to achieve this.


The whole premise of that quote was completely insane, countries competing against other countries? What the fuck, that means they will be competing against developing countries that produce super cheap products by compromising the pay of the workers, i.e. all the workers around the world will be fucked.


So the question is: will the Internet bring about true Communism because companies are no longer required and each individual can truly provide their worth in terms of knowledge given true freedom of information is available to all?


No.

But not all people ar equally equipped to make use of that information.

So true communist equality will not ensue. Dumb people will still fail as long as they are permitted to make their own decisions.

On the one hand I think there's enough variety of tasks that most people will naturally find slots to fill - on the other, and it's something I have already raised, I agree that the system doesn't secure really disadvantaged people, and by that I don't mean by circumstance but by ability.

Socialism will never work because there's no incentive to work. Take it from someone who has relatives in ex-Soviet countries; half the week they'd sit on their asses and get drunk instead of going to work, and still got full pay.

Why the hell do people always talk about bringing about change? There is no reason to change! When someone makes a better system than Western free-market, then we'll talk, but right now socialism is a step backwards.

There is an incentive to work, you gain credits - it's that the credits are far more equalised per task. I'm not talking of a centrally-planned economy, I'm talking of open source economy that flattens pay differences.

Change happens - for example, IBM are currently promoting a concept called Business-On-Demand.

Let's say that tomorrow you want to start selling T-shirts - Business-On-Demand is an online service that automatically provides you the licenses, design shops, distributors so that you can start tomorrow just by filling in some online forms. Hell, you can do it now - just open a business online through the government, go to a site such as Alibaba for production shops, get your designs made, sell them through Ebay or your own site and you're in business within a week - Business on Demand aims to provide a one-stop-shop for this.

Previously this would take ages in terms of visiting government offices, sending off for forms, hunting down production, trying to find distributors.

Change is happening and it's making individual ownership very, very possible.

I sincerely hope you're wrong, but I'm not worried about it. There will never be "equal access to information for all." You and I will simply never have the resources available to large organizations, like governments and military. And even if so, why would "Total Information Awareness," as it were, bring about communism? Are you so egotistical about your belief that you think the only thing preventing everyone else from sharing it, is that they are ignorant?

I really think you're wrong, information is already becoming very accessible and examples I've provided give an incentive for business to release their secrets.

Ignorant is the wrong word - it's that previously we have not had access or the means for individual ownership without a lot of effort - in weighing up whether it's better to run your own business or work for a company, historically it's safer to work for a company - this is changing.

Uh, no. A lawyer is a lawyer because of the service he provides, the skills he has and because he wants to. A farmer the same, and because he happens to have access to... a farm.

There's plenty of examples of these previously different vocations merging, from farmers who take up law to provide steady income to 13 year olds providing excellent online legal advice - in a flat auction system, this would merge even more. In the current generation, we're expected to hold over 20 jobs by the age of 40 whereas just 50 years ago we were expected to hold just one, in one company, for our entire lives.

Nice phrase. Relatively meaningless. Its as applicable to other forms of government and economies as communism. More so, perhaps. I think its just more communist egotism.

True - I really mean communism as I stated it but to explain further, it's the flattening of rewards due to open information, if everyone owns their own resources for productivity rather than selling to a corporation, it's much of a muchness for true communism - that's why I match it with local politics - true common ownership.

Do you think calling a currency a "credit" is the same as instituting a form of communism? That specialization or generalization in terms of economic opportunity is a communist trait and not any other?

No I'm not, and I really think you've Soviet communism in mind when you think about this - I'm talking common ownership accessed through broad individual ownership matched with local open source politics - I may need to go into more detail.

Yeah, so find me a lawyer who's willing to work for the same amount of credits as a plumber. And I'll find you a total idiot.

You have no idea how much some plumbers charge it seems, nor how little some lawyers charge - this would really not be a difficult task for me.

Communism would only occur if there were no scarcity, and even then I doubt people would share simply because something else would rise to take the place of physical goods and services. Now, the internet can reduce some forms of scarcity, but as of yet it is incapable of eliminating them.

Yes, I need to think about this area a little more

In regard to the China model, you have to look in to it more deeply before making conclusions on it. How much innovation is occurring in that market? How many of those designs are unique and not just ripoffs of Western models in a very lax IP regulatory framework? How subsidized and protected from external competition are they?

At the moment I'd say ripping off is very much the business model yet you could say the same for 60's Japan yet now look where they're at.

I'm not sure as to subsidizations, I don't think, as private businesses, they get that many but not certain - if I have the inclination I'll try find out more.