Marx meets a Networked Society

Welcome to our future, where "Social Production" replaces the traditional paradigm of Marx's "Material Production", where inherent human behavior and exchange is measured, commodified and monetized via a system of computer networks. Within this paradigm, it is the humans that are nodes within the networked system, interconnected globally and operating/exchanging socially produced "objects" based upon rules established by the network designers and operators.



As the Clash of Civilizations (map below) dialectic (civilization versus civilization) is manufactured and embedded into each person within society, a synthesis for this dialectic is offered... presented as an interconnected world where no individual will be able to attack another individual without damaging their own self-interest.



Unfortunately, the more interconnected the individuals, the less space for individuality, as the interconnectedness mandates tighter boundaries for each individual (ie. node) and more resistance to any movement inconsistent with social momentum. Hence, as the interconnected system grows, so does its primacy, at the expense of each individual ("node") within the system. Further, motivation and ability to attack another is also highly muted in a tightly interconnected social system, as resistance to any deviation is great and unseen consequences for any action is potentially greater and more swift. Moreover, for the public who "exist" within these networked structures, their realities will be beholden to those who create and manage the network systems, as depicted in the following excerpt from The Matrix Trilogy.

We're migrating from a spiritual framework of God working through the individual to a framework where a universal force acts upon the public collectively and externally. This is part of the transition from the individual, as an image of the spirit which has primacy, to an external force where the individual is nothing more than a node in the collective (ie Networked System), and the collective has primacy. This is why we must transition to "New Age" paradigms, as it's an essential ingredient in suppressing individual human life.... to the will of the networked collective.

The Wealth of Networks – With Yochai Benkler
http://www.scribemedia.org/2007/03/19/yochai-benkler/

Yochai Benkler has a thought. He has many really. But the central thought stems from the very simple fact that you and I find ourselves online with a growing host of communicative and collaborative tools at our disposal.

“Every connected person on the planet — somewhere like a billion people — now has the physical capital necessary to make and communicate information, knowledge and culture.”

This is what Yochai says and if you think blogs or Flickr or del.icio.us or YouTube or Wikis and especially Wikipedia, you begin to get a sense of what he means by ordinary connected folk having the “physical capital necessary.”

This physical capital is simply a modem and a computer. Have that and you can participate. Now contrast that very low barrier to entry with what is needed to start a television or radio station, or to publish a magazine or newspaper.

On the face of it, the concept is relatively pedestrian. People have spoken about the democratizing Internet revolution since the earliest days of the Web.

However, Benkler digs deeper and considers the economic, legal and political ramifications of what happens when there is no intermediary preventing your voice, your code, your video, your pictures or your ideas from riffing on, mashing up, making heads tails or doing it the other way around.

And if we look around we see new economies mushrooming left and right. Less than a decade ago some Stanford grad students figured out an algorithm to improve search. They called their company Google and now employ over 10,000. In 2006 they bought a video sharing company that was founded in 2005. Purchase price: $1.65 billion.

In 1992, an open source operating system with a funny name was completed. The underlying source code for Linux was and is available for anyone to use, modify and freely redistribute. By the late 90’s, IBM and Hewlett-Packard were among just some of the many corporations giving it support. By the early 2000’s, a quarter of all servers were running Linux rather than proprietary systems. Spain, Brazil and China are just some of many governments that have adopted the platform throughout government agencies.

Individuals and collectives band together throughout the blogosphere and uncover halftruths, distortions and lies. All they need is a free blog account to do so.

This networked world is destructive to the previous gatekeepers of information, culture and proprietary systems. When Brazil has 20,000 Linux desktops (and counting), that’s 20,000 less Microsoft licenses. Such destruction can be spun positively and Benkler’s positive spin is found in The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom.

Published in 2006, The Wealth of Networks builds on Benkler’s previous ideas about the transformative effects of networked environments.

At root is something he calls “commons-based peer production” the effects of which are overturning culture, politics and knowledge.

The “commons” can be considered a social sphere: it brings groups together to create and build. It leverages these groups to create something entirely new. And it allows for new people and new groups to build on its output.

The commons is also a legal attitude based on Stanford’s Lawrence Lessig and his work with Creative Commons, a non-profit that provides a way to expand the range and number of creative works available in the public sphere for others to legally build upon and share.

In the video above, Benkler explores how legal and social forces are creating and intertwining with economic forces, and what this might all mean for democratic societies.

I think I just had an aha moment.

I've been trying to understand why the push for the Open Society concept by the likes of people like Ray Kurweil, and his open intellectual property mantra, and George Soros with his Open Society Institute.

Now, if the next societal migration will be to "Social Production" over "Material Production", that means that all social activities will be monitored, measured, quantified, and accounted for - with the vast computer networks doing all of this activity via an ecology of sensors. No wonder there is this huge push for mobile appliances and "smart appliances", with each including embedded sensors that monitor activity and send information about that activity back to the network.

So, in order to monitor activities like one person giving walking directions to another, all human activity will be monitored, at least activity that will be money producing. If all activity is to be monitored in order to survive, then I can now see the need for everything to be "Open" and available for monitoring, feedback and control via the network.

This is certainly an intriguing way to structure society. It's far more aggressive than 1984 or Brave New World. I certainly don't want to stick around for its manifestation.

Unmutual wrote:

I think I just had an aha moment.

I've been trying to understand why the push for the Open Society concept by the likes of people like Ray Kurweil, and his open intellectual property mantra, and George Soros with his Open Society Institute.

Now, if the next societal migration will be to "Social Production" over "Material Production", that means that all social activities will be monitored, measured, quantified, and accounted for - with the vast computer networks doing all of this activity via an ecology of sensors. No wonder there is this huge push for mobile appliances and "smart appliances", with each including embedded sensors that monitor activity and send information about that activity back to the network.

So, in order to monitor activities like one person giving walking directions to another, all human activity will be monitored, at least activity that will be money producing. If all activity is to be monitored in order to survive, then I can now see the need for everything to be "Open" and available for monitoring, feedback and control via the network.

This is certainly an intriguing way to structure society. It's far more aggressive than 1984 or Brave New World. I certainly don't want to stick around for its manifestation.

It sounds bizarre indeed. I don't understand where in the system there is anything being produced? It doesn't make sense that one could earn something by "giving directions" to someone!?! Color me very confused.

Explorer wrote:

It sounds bizarre indeed. I don't understand where in the system there is anything being produced? It doesn't make sense that one could earn something by "giving directions" to someone!?! Color me very confused.

What I see is that *some* social interactions (that are now simply part of everyday life) will have a cost associated with them. At least, that's what this guy seems to be saying. What else can he mean when he says "social production"? But as said earlier in the thread, social production means social monitoring and controls. Can you imagine what your tax return is going to look like?

LindyLady wrote:

Explorer wrote:

It sounds bizarre indeed. I don't understand where in the system there is anything being produced? It doesn't make sense that one could earn something by "giving directions" to someone!?! Color me very confused.

What I see is that *some* social interactions (that are now simply part of everyday life) will have a cost associated with them. At least, that's what this guy seems to be saying. What else can he mean when he says "social production"? But as said earlier in the thread, social production means social monitoring and controls. Can you imagine what your tax return is going to look like?

I don't know what he means either. The vagueness of his proposal leads me to feel there may be very little of substance actually there once the "proposal" is deciphered (and it SURE DOES need deciphering), as it seems to be mere verbal posturing, designed to impress but insubstantial once it is *tied to reality*, i.e. once these ideas are given their real meaning in words that have a real meaning. I strongly doubt that we can sustain our lives by doing little favors for each other, and charging for them. (!!!) This has NOTHING to do with reality, or our actual and very real needs, such as bread, homes, clothing, etc.! What freaking planet is this guy from, anyway!??

It's truly outrageous that they never stop trying to mock us, trick, and enslave us.. My answer to these strange creatures would be that: I am not a number NOR a node. That which he claims is a viable system sounds instead like the same old tired dream of the Elites--to harness us, stuff us (as a taxidermist would), crush us or, as in the present case, plug us into something (a la the Matrix model). My answer would be: Just try it! Or as a friend of ours tends to say, "I will resist." In other words, I would rather be dead (and undoubtedly would end up dead) than allow such a thing to happen to me. .

I wish to God that a plague would just strike these monstrosities dead. One can only hope. (Hope they get **audited** too....)

Explorer wrote:

I don't know what he means either. The vagueness of his proposal leads me to feel there may be very little of substance actually there once the "proposal" is deciphered (and it SURE DOES need deciphering), as it seems to be mere verbal posturing, designed to impress but insubstantial once it is *tied to reality*, i.e. once these ideas are given their real meaning in words that have a real meaning. I strongly doubt that we can sustain our lives by doing little favors for each other, and charging for them. (!!!) This has NOTHING to do with reality, or our actual and very real needs, such as bread, homes, clothing, etc.!

Looks like book pub'd in 2006, and lectures in 2007-8, so boyz running some of the biggest Internet properties are already moving forward with biz models to implement framework.

What's interesting is: the technocracy is buying the story and continuing to build the "web"; they actually plan to deploy social production; they actually believe it can be successful.

Who's delirious now?

They Live wrote:

Explorer wrote:

I don't know what he means either. The vagueness of his proposal leads me to feel there may be very little of substance actually there once the "proposal" is deciphered (and it SURE DOES need deciphering), as it seems to be mere verbal posturing, designed to impress but insubstantial once it is *tied to reality*, i.e. once these ideas are given their real meaning in words that have a real meaning. I strongly doubt that we can sustain our lives by doing little favors for each other, and charging for them. (!!!) This has NOTHING to do with reality, or our actual and very real needs, such as bread, homes, clothing, etc.!

Looks like book pub'd in 2006, and lectures in 2007-8, so boyz running some of the biggest Internet properties are already moving forward with biz models to implement framework.

What's interesting is: the technocracy is buying the story and continuing to build the "web"; they actually plan to deploy social production; they actually believe it can be successful.

Who's delirious now?

Ok, I'm definitely looking into this.
I have some interesting ideas...but will get back to you on this later.

Did some research--

This proposal of Benkler's is so vast in scope, covers so broad a range of human activity, yet is still so indeterminate in shape, that I would have to wait to see some practical application before I could assess it. In other words, whether it is a great detriment, pie-in-the-sky or even possibly a boon, still remains to be determined, in my mind. At this point, I think it is too formless to judge.

I do believe that 'formlessness' can be dangerous, and should be watched carefully to ensure it doesn't morph into a monstrous Matrix-type reality. THAT would be my biggest concern.

Have you looked into it any further? I do note that it stresses the elimination of Copywright Law, and the voluntary (unpaid) efforts of many, as conditions for its success. Interesting, but I can't put it all together in any sensible way, as yet...the pieces aren't matching up yet.

C1 wrote:

However, Benkler digs deeper and considers the economic, legal and political ramifications of what happens when there is no intermediary preventing your voice, your code, your video, your pictures or your ideas from riffing on, mashing up, making heads tails or doing it the other way around.

Awe crap, these guys are going to take all of humanity's social interaction and assign an economic value to them, so that they can be exchanged via their financial system, monitored, tracked, taxed and controlled.

This is psychotic!