NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been wondering recently how various anti authoritarian economic systems can accumulate, dissemination and preserve information, and to what extent they can do so.

Why? Because I'm an anarchist and a long, winding, fit-for-blog adventure, set off by by a trick question by none other than resident NL, has made me abandon ParEcon in favour of the more traditional syndicalist model, precisely because ParEcon seems to have major issues with handling the knowledge base.

Need more encouragement? Alright, you shifty gits, I have some other reservations about old school syndicalism, so if you ever wanted to convince someone of your silly Utopian system, here's your chance. Never had that opportunity on NSG before, have you? ;)

The obligatory disclaimer: I don't want to hear about how rotten anarchists are, how ungodly or divine this or that is, or whatever else nonsense gets spewed on here. This topic is to discuss the mechanics of information accumulation, dissemination and preservation in economic systems supporting decentralized anti authoritarian social models only. If you don't want stick to the topic, find another one to post in, yeh?

Is their a Anti- 'Anti-Authoritarians' NSG group?

Wait, anti-authoritarian means anarchist now? *is behind on the jargon*

Is their a Anti- 'Anti-Authoritarians' NSG group?Let me just stress that you're more than welcome not to post in this thread. That aside, I'd suggest you start your own thread if you want an answer. Don't spam mine and I won't spam yours, deal?Wait, anti-authoritarian means anarchist now? *is behind on the jargon*I doubt it, but I might be behind on the jargon too. Whatever the case, I'm simply trying to be as inclusive as possible. People might have nifty economic systems perfectly suited to support an anarchic social model, without necessarily considering themselves anarchists. It's the mechanics for accumulating, disseminating and preserving information in such systems I'd like to discuss, not whether or not their proponents are anarchists or the merits of anarchism in general.

Why? Because I'm an anarchist and a long, winding, fit-for-blog adventure, set off by by a trick question by none other than resident NL, has made me abandon ParEcon in favour of the more traditional syndicalist model, precisely because ParEcon seems to have major issues with handling the knowledge base.
Yay, I made a difference! [/Zoidberg-Voice]

Maybe the work of this year's Nobel Prize in Economics could be of interest? It's mechanism design theory, which is (very roughly speaking) about how to design the rules of a game in such a way that the outcome is what you want it to be. These days we're quite close to combining general equilibrium theory with game theory and seeing the market as a gigantic game with various Nash equilibria of sorts.

On the Newshour with Jim Lehrer one of the laureates was talking about his work, and it sounded like he's focussing very much on information economics, that is on figuring out the rules of the game such that information ends up with the people who need it - with the primary problem being about how to get people to reveal preferences when normally it wouldn't be to their advantage.

Yay, I made a difference! [/Zoidberg-Voice]Indeed, you mean disillusionist you! Then again, the only thing worse than being wrong is not knowing it, so thanks :p

Maybe the work of this year's Nobel Prize in Economics could be of interest?I hope so, I haven't gotten around to it yet, but you're not the first to suggest it. Bit outta my league though, but I'll find time to understand it.. Somehow. Hmm... Maybe going back to the 1700s wouldn't be all bad? Haha.

Now that I have you though, you're just about an ANCAP'er, right? Mind explaining how you dodge the information loss?

Now that I have you though, you're just about an ANCAP'er, right? Mind explaining how you dodge the information loss?
Well, you might have to be more specific. Generally the answer would be that market prices convey all the information anyone needs, but that might not be what you're after.

Well, you might have to be more specific. Generally the answer would be that market prices convey all the information anyone needs, but that might not be what you're after.It is and it isn't. Unless you can somehow preserve stuff like major universities and transnationals in a capitalist, but decentralized anti authoritarian social model, information accumulation would seem to me to be extremely limited and information loss relatively high.

But then, I see a distinction between "what anyone needs" and what a given market model can do. The need would seem to be infinite information accumulation and dissemination. Unless the market model allows for infinite growth and sufficiently high growth rates to offset information loss, I don't see how the need can be met.

In other words, the only way I see it working efficiently is if commercial interests can consolidate beyond the limitations of the social model, which would defeat the point of the system in the first place. I'd also question what would stop such a system from doing just that, but that's beyond the scope of what I wanted to discuss in this thread.

What types of information are you talking about needing to accumulate and disseminate?

What types of information are you talking about needing to accumulate and disseminate?Not types, just information. Ultimately I'm talking about the prospects for our knowledge base, as I believe I mentoned in the OP.

Not types, just information. Ultimately I'm talking about the prospects for our knowledge base, as I believe I mentoned in the OP.

What exactly are you talking about here?

And why is it important, specifically why is it valuable, but won't be expressed in the properties that emerge from a market?

My understanding is that under ParEcon, the meetings of upper councils would be recorded and made available for review by anybody. If that's not what you're referring to, and you're referring more to the media, then information dispersal could be done as an economic output and performed within balanced job complexes.

Something like this?


1) Any planned or regulated economic system is authoritarian.

2) The only free economy is a gift economy.

3) Successful large-scale economies can only evolve. Planned economies don't succeed and are susceptible to collapse.

4) A gift economy can't be implemented on a large scale due to organizational dependencies on capitalism. The mechanisms of a gift economy can only be evolved from the ground up.

5) A society wishing to transition from a capitalist economy to evolve a gift economy should follow a gradual, two-pronged approach:

(a) They should seek to lessen the dependence of individuals on capitalist organizations.
(b) They should gradually weaken and phase out the contract law that props of capitalist economies to prompt the growth of a gift economy to replace it without destroying the economy in one fell swoop.

Is it me or do I smell the rotting flesh of a recently resurrected corpse?

Oh, I didn't completely read the thread starter, and now that I have, I don't really get it. What's the problem that needs to be solved? Isn't the Internet an example of how information flow in a society takes care of itself?

Is it me or do I smell the rotting flesh of a recently resurrected corpse?

Does have a familiar theme.....

For the record, Anarchists are Anti-Authoritarians. Anti-Authoritarians are not always Anarchists. Most people that identify as Anti-Authoritarians are independent from most "traditional" leftist movements. If they are called anarchists, some may go so far as be offended, at least taken aback.
-----------------------------------------------------
I honestly don't know what you (Original Poster) are talking about. Are you posing a question where the answer lies at restructuring "zine libraries" and infoshops? Our history certainly has been preserved, one need only look for it. The information is there.

Most groups have transparent processes - why would this change in an anti-authoritarian society?

Gift Economies are great. ParEcon is fine, I need to read up more on it. Mutualism is interesting. Worker Councils like the CNT/FAI had showed fantastic leaps in production and surplus - the process was transparent. Personally speaking, I believe a mixed economy is a robust economy.

I adore Gift Economies, however I don't see them implemented for certain good, certain services. They are certainly great as Really Really Free Markets have so far shown.