[ox-en] Re: Governance and Incorporation (was Socialized Infrastructure (Sweden))
- From: marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:26:46 -0700
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
The corporation as an organizational hierarchy, and I would argue, based on
relatively new work in evolutionary game theory (see Snowdrift Game vs
Prisoner's Dilemma thread on P2P Research), that any hierarchy, including
renewable hierarchies, is a structure that rewards "scarcity of unpaid
cooperation" .. This is pretty deep, IMO.
Inspired leaders can say that they want to lead by uniting not dividing but
the very structure of governance that subjugates 99% of the planet's
population, i.e. the hierarchical organization, is designed on the principle
of divide and conquer.
At the very root of the p2p movement is the idea that unpaid cooperation is
rewarded. If we ignore this idea, as I had done with the P2P Energy Economy,
we lose our moral basis in this debate.
The only viable incentive is the common good.
Thanks for bringing it up.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius gmail.com>wrote:
I sent this to p2p-research, but it bounced. I guess I need to sign-up
Could you give me your rough take on my questions at the end?
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:
"Symmetric, 100 Mbps service in Stockholm costs $11/month [in
Conditions in every city are different, but part of the explanation for
low cost is that the city owns a municipal fiber network reaching every
block. They lease network access to anyone who would like to offer
The ISPs, including incumbent telephone and cable companies, compete on
If the customers are paying $11/month the ISPs are taking a profit,
then it *could* be even cheaper.
I mean, if the WE (any group with any need) knew how to share, then
the WE could pool their resources to lease the line and then share the
benefits at cost. Right?
And if the WE were even more aggressive, the WE could even purchase
and *own* the Material Means of Production (the physical network in
Now the ./ article seems to imply that the WE (in Sweden) own those lines.
But that is not quite true because the supposed WE (the city in this
case) will not lease the line directly to customers, but instead
require for-profit corporations become the "middle-men" - taking
control and value (profit) away from the customers.
There are more administrative costs if THEY (the city government) were
also the ISP layer.
And the semi-valid argument against such a move is that it creates
centralized State Socialism.
The reason that argument has some validity is because almost all
governments are currently under the direction of Capitalist (profit
maximizing and therefore scarcity maximizing) corporations.
So we won't be able Govern ourselves effectively until we have control
But we can't control Production (can't organize effectively) until we
discover how to share the Material Means of Production.
And sharing Physical Sources for the purpose of maximizing freedom and
(secondarily) utilization means we must know how to self-Govern.
So it seems we may be at an impasse.
We can't change our current governments directly (voting is theater)
because they are controlled by Capitalist Corporations.
And we can't change how we create *new* Corporations because we do not
yet know precisely what is wrong with the current entities.
I mean, sure they're 'evil'. But what causes them to be such bullies?
Is there any chance it is a structure that rewards scarcity?
If so, then where is the root of that reward?
Is profit related to scarcity? If so, then what shall be done with it?
Contact: projekt oekonux.de