Re: [ox-en] Multi-local societies and Global Villages
- From: Michael Bouwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 21:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Yes, centralization can help decentralisation.
As I see it, following Alexander Galloway's useful distinctions in Protocol, it is useful to distinguish centralisation, one center of power, decentralisation, different centers of power, from distributed networks (fully autonomous nodes).
In this context, decentralized networks always have hubs, and moreover, they are obligatory, so that the autonomy of the nodes is curtailed. By contrasts, distributed networks may have hubs (in fact, naturally will have hubs as demonstrated by the research on scale-free networks by Basarabi and others).
However, in reality, human networks will be hybrid, with some elements being distributed, others decentralized, etc... For example, the centralized DNS system, or hierarchical layers of the IP protocol, do not preclude the point to point distributed nature of the internet's basic structure; the voluntary leaderships of peer production and free software projects, do not preclude peer governance. So yes, leadership, or centralisation if you like, <can> be a factor in promoting what you call decentralization (but you mean distributed networks I guess)
More on network typology here at http://www.p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Network_Typology
Daniel Quinn's neo-tribalism (http://www.p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Beyond_Civilization), is not a primitivist plea for a return to the tribal era, but rather for a return of the type of close relationships which existed at that time, but starting from the conditions of today. I have not studied it in depth, but I think it makes a lot of sense. My own experience with the extended family I now have in Thailand, has convinced me that for personal happiness and warmth, it beats anything that the contemporary West has to offer, and it would be a natural extension for me, to want to complement that with an extended group of non-kin people, for example with the people associated with the P2P Foundation. Similarly, in a Global Village type of organisation, I'm pretty sure that the most natural thing to do would be to co-create neo-tribal communities (not exclusive of the impersonal collaboration, but co-extensive with it).
Franz, what do you think?
On Steiner-inspired approaches to associative economics, see http://www.p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Associative_Economics
Centralization strengthens de-centralization? Now that's new.
I'm afraid you have to choose between the two.
And generally, I think the concept of "hicks in the sticks preparing for
doomsday" is problematic (à la Quinn's neo-Tribalism [1]) and rather the
_antithesis_ of the modern _information society_ that Oekonux envisions.
Global Villages have nothing to do with neo Tribalism.
The radical neo-Tribalist Daniel Quinn heartily recommends Gaviotas, which is
listed in your directory of Global Villages, as a model of neo-Tribalism.
Maybe Quinn knows the motives behind Gaviotas better than you do.
Btw, the "global villages" in Switzerland are run by the Rudolf Steiner cult.
Not exactly an ideology that is worth associating with either...
It is not about renouncing technology, but going for the right kind of
technology.
So there is - for example - a difference between a petrol based chemistry
and a plant based chemistry. The latter will be the base for Global
Villages technology design and material cycles.
How do you build computer chips and fiber optic cables with "plant-based
chemistry" ? As a sociologist, do you have the technical knowledge to
assess the options for that at all? (The old handicap of Marx.)
Global Villages are based on high-tech self providing and need a specific
kind of technology.
"High-tech self providing" is an oxymoron. High-tech requires a complex
infrastructure (both social and technical) that cannot nearly be achieved
by hicks in the sticks. And "de-centralized hubs" are another oxymoron.
You can't build solutions on oxymorons.
The good news is: the same technology is needed around the world. And its
actually possible to design and produce it.
That gives the idea some material base to succeed!
The bad news is: this technology can only be built in sophisticated centers.
These are controlled by predators, unless there will be a producer take-over.
But that can't come from the bush, it must happen in the centers.
Chris
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
---------------------------------
Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de