thanks a lot David, by the way, we would really appreciate comments and suggestions to our first draft of the research report let me know in case of interest, Michel On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 7:28 PM David Ronfeldt <[email protected]> wrote:
Because it responds to this thread too, I’ll mostly just repeat what I just replied in the other thread, now for the broader audience here:
The influence of each TIMN form in a society's mix will of course vary over time. The four forms won't necessarily be “equal in influence” as you put it, at least not all across a society, nor to the public eye. But they may still be roughly equal in importance analytically, diagnostically. Maybe it’s an idealized implication of TIMN that it would be good if the bright sides of its forms were equally influential, or at least equally taken into account diagnostically, including in policymaking. Maybe that’s an idea I should develop more (as I once meant to). For example, improving the condition of the “tribal” form in America these days has bee sorely neglected to the detriment of our society/system as a whole — lots of broken families, broken communities, etc. (e.g., Robert Putnam’s book Bowling Alone).
I suppose we could blame domination by capitalism (an expression of TIMN’s market form) for this devaluation and distortion at the tribal level. But it hasn’t always been so much so (e.g., the 50s in America for many families). If emphasizing dominance / precedence by the latest form were the best theoretical approach, TIMN can be adapted to suit that. After all, I’ve deduced from TIMN that monoform (tribe-based) systems get superseded by biform (tribes + institutions) systems, then these by triform (+markets) systems, and that these will next be superseded by quadraform (+networks) systems. A potential domination model is embedded in there. But for now I’m supposing that a comprehensive multi-form perspective (approach to analysis) will prove more correct, and do so for analyzing the past as well as likely future.
Hey, this has been informative and instructive, but I’m kinda done here for now. Yet I’ll certainly read any further comments you or others have. Onward.
P.S.: As you may recall, each of the TIMN phases can be associated with different religious phrases. I’ve barely sketched this in spots. But the result is pretty similar to yours below using Fiske’s relational modalities.
===
On Aug 9, 2018, at 9:03 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
perhaps you read subsumed and domination differently than I do, it absolutely does not mean the disappearance of other forms and/or any absolutism (funnily, absolutism was the result of the equilibrium between declining feudal forms and emerging market forms, which is what gave kings such an absolute power)
subsumbtion means, geared towards the chaotic attractor
let's take spirituality
under authority ranking / state distribution, organized religion takes the form of communal brotherhood (christian, buddhist, taoist monasteries), but the original egaliterianism is subsumed under feudal and ranked power relationships; under merchant capitalism, capitalism takes the form of democratic Reformed Churchers, under neoliberal regimes, as for-pay market experiences ('instant enlightenment in one weekend')
second, we should make a difference between what we commend and what actually is the case, whether we wish for such subsumption or not, it has been historically the case for as long as humanity existed, so you would have to make a extraordinary case for such a extraordinary expectation and hypothesis
Michel
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:26 PM David Ronfeldt <[email protected]> wrote:
I gather we are having some analytical differences, but also some interpretation differences — and in many spots I’m not sure which are which from the writing.
I see points I quite agree with:
Given the way I understand TIMN, its four cardinal forms and their respective sectors do indeed need to interact with each other — so I agree that ”the commons need to interact with the market”. TIMN also agrees that an older sector/form will be modified by the rise of a new form, in order to work best with it — so of course a reformed market would better “work for the commons”. I have never thought that any sector can “escape relations with the market” or any other sector. I also agree that "for a commons sector to thrive as such, major societal reforms would be necessary” — but TIMN may imply different reforms from what you have in mind.
Meanwhile, I also see some serious differences (if I read you correctly):
You say that the commons sector will be "geared towards the market” and make it "more competitive than market forms without the commons”. To a degree, yes. But the way I read this and related materials, you think that the key function of the commons will be to determine the new economy. But constraining the commons' function to that would violate my understanding of TIMN. Where’s the unique purposeful activity of the commons in all this? You all keep going back to the economy, the market, the nature of capitalism. But TIMN implies that the network-based sector will be as different from the market-based sector as the latter is from the state- and tribe/family-based sectors. The core purposes, values, and concepts that accompany the tribal, institutional, and market forms are all quite different from each other; if TIMN is correct, the same will apply to the network form and its sector.
This brings us around to what is currently our biggest difference: TIMN does not argue for believing in subsumption or domination by any one form over others. It often happens, but I can’t find that it’s a good outcome. Such subsumption or domination certainly doesn’t occur when a new form first arises. Later, in its mature phases, it should grow strong enough to hold its own amid the other forms and their sectors. In late maturity, it may try to subsume / dominate over all of society, as absolutism did ages ago, and capitalism seems to be doing today. But that results in imbalances and distortions, with the dark sides of a form running rampant over the bright. Something similar applies when an older form, say the tribal form, holds dominant sway. In case after case, that has led to corrupt clannish regimes and societies, where state institutions cannot professionalize and a fair crony-less market economy cannot take hold. So, it seems way too early to talk about a new/next society dominated by the nascent network form and commons sector. Its ideals and values may look preferable today, but so did the ideals of the older forms once upon a time. I’m all in favor of pro-commons ideals and values spreading, but TIMN also implies retaining the positive values and ideals from the older forms.
Michel, I don’t understand why you tell me that "you never talk about commos sectors in your work but about networks” — for I constantly refer to a commons sector as a likely result of the rise of the new network form. And you then state that “hence for you, what is important, is that the corporate market form is subsumed to the network form” — but that strikes me as close to your view, and far, very far, from my own. I repeat, TIMN as I understand it does not commend such subsumption and domination by any single form — that usually means imbalance and distortion, as discussed above. Maybe I misread your phrasing here?
Maybe you try to clarify your view when you next observe that "in blockchain economies all market players are subsumed to the new network form, which is a hybrid of markets and commons, but they are not completely subsumed to the commons sector as such”. But that still means a lot of subsuming is going on. It also makes it seem as though the market has been taken over by the network form via a hybrid.
Not so, according to TIMN. All earlier forms — the tribal, institutional, and market forms — will be modified by the rise of the network form. That is consistent with TIMN’s general system dynamics. Family, bureaucratic, and market structures are indeed already being altered by network dynamics. But none of them are being subsumed, and they all will/should (according to TIMN) retain their distinctive essences if matters proceed well. In a quadriform society, the market and commons sectors will indeed interact, but their interaction and interconnection will not be the primary purpose and activity of either. Moreover, the +N sector will be as different from the +M sector as the latter is from the +I and the T sectors.
Anyway, quite an interesting instructive exchange with you and James. I barely found time to write all this. I hope you have time to read it. Are we making progress? I’m gathering that our notions of the commons sector are more different than I’d thought. Onward.
===
On Aug 7, 2018, at 12:28 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
hi David,
I may see this a bit differently than yourself,
i.e. the market itself can have extractive and/or generative forms, and the commons need to interact with the market and the commons,
in order for the market to work for the commons, it needs to be a generative market, i.e. a non-capitalist or post-capitalist market form or at least a suitable adapted capitalist market form that is kept at arms length
a commons sector can use 'communist principles' internally, as it does in open source, everybody can contribute and use, or it can use 'socialist principles' internally (reciprocal relationships and allocations); but externally, in this society, it cannot escape relations with the market,
now in the blockchain space, the commons are geared towards the market, in ways that seem acceptable to most actors in these sectors, as they do for most of open source spaces; but for us, that is not sufficient, since these arrangements still generate major exclusions (higher gini coefficients than normal market relationships) and ecological damages (relatively higher than external); this being said, blockchain economics are tilted far more in favour of labour, however, at the price of exploiting 'external labor'
so we favour different arrangement, a la Enspiral, in which the market and capital, sustains and grows the commoners and their resources
but you never talk about commos sectors in your work but about networks
hence for you, what is important, is that the corporate market form is subsumed to the network form, i.e. there are much less possibilities for vertically integrated oligopolies; in blockchain economies all market players are subsumed to the new network form, which is a hybrid of markets and commons, but they are not completely subsumed to the commons sector as such
nevertheless, what is already shows is that a network form , allied with a strong commons element, is for market forces, already more competitive than market forms without the commons, that surely, must be significant enough for your TIMN framework,
open source was the first wave of this, blockchain is the second, and the platform economy is also a form of this
at a more marginal local level, urban commons are also playing a role in this transformation
but for a commons sector to thrive as such, major societal reforms would be necessary, i.e. a shift away from extractive financing, to generative financing models
this is the price to pay for saving the planet, otherwise we are doomed
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 12:29 AM David Ronfeldt <[email protected]> wrote: Your email refers to an article about applying blockchain to business actors in a market economy. What interests me far more is the nature of actors who will end up in a new commons sector, possibly after migrating there from the old public and private sectors. Will blockchain-like methods give them advantages? Enough to help form and sustain a distinct commons sector?
As you know, I think good candidates for this sector will come from health, education, environment, and welfare activities and related insurance entities, following huge reorganizations. A while back I saw an article about blockchain’s promise for insurance, observing among other points that "Blockchain adoption has the power to transition new and existing models of insurance, including P2P insurance, parametric insurance and microinsurance, into a new digital age.”
The article you circulated about “V-form networks” implies improvements for the market sector. Fine with me. But I’d sure like to see lots more about competitive advantages for a commons sector vis a vis the old public and private sectors, along with cooperative advantages within and without this prospective commons sector. At least I’ve seen few references to using blockchain/ holochain/ whatever in hospitals and schools.
More generally, i shall hope that this prospective new commons sector (which will be decades in the making) focuses on being itself, the commons sector, and not on transforming all of society. Many problems we have now stem from the public and private sectors trying to be so much more than they should be, distorting our society (including by squeezing and burdening the family /community /household sector). All of which helps explain why I’d say politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Perez would be well-advised to cease calling for socialism across society as a whole and instead call for socialism in one sector, since the commons sector should meet many of their values and principles. TIMN is not a socialist theory, but it could commend what I just suggested.
Onward.
===
On Aug 5, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
dear James,
in the context of our study, https://www.foprop.org/stewarding-material-commons
perhaps this context is precisely what you could offer us ? I am also still in particular need of a good explanation, for a separate 'explanatory box' of the 3 thermodynamic laws,
Michel
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:31 AM <[email protected]> wrote: beyond earthquake, Michel
the global political economy of supply chains restructured by blockchain will be in full operation when emergency rationing is instituted about 2040-2045 due to swelling populations, diminishing levels of arable land, water, fossil fuels and rare minerals and the debilitating effects of climate change
-----------------------------------------
From: "Michel Bauwens" To: "Alex Pazaitis", "David Ronfeldt", "Sarah Grace Manski", "xavier rizos", "Xavier BlaqSwans", "Andrea Fumagalli", "Alex Foti", "jose ramos", "p2p-foundation" Cc: Sent: Saturday August 4 2018 3:27:49AM Subject: eco-systemic supply chains are on their way
I hope this can impress some people that are still on the sidelines of this major earthquake, to understand the significance of what is occuring right now, a fundamental re-ordering of the capitalist economy under new models:
first of all, see this article, that shows successfull blockchain trials for supply chains, https://which-50.com/commbank-and-logistics-giants-complete-blockchain-trade... ?
and what it all means in terms of industrial structures see the article quoted below,
but in fact, I don't think their analysis goes far enough, because in the ethereum networks, corporates are already subsumed to a eco-system consisting not just of companies, but of a multitude of other players, including lots of single individuals:
QUOTE
Blockchain-Based Corporate V-Networks = "V-form networks consist of a number of fully independent companies that effectively operate as one vertically integrated company through blockchain technology". [1]
Contents [hide] • 1 Contextual Citation • 2 Description • 3 Example • 3.1 The IBM and Maersk TradeTech Contextual Citation[edit] "A blockchain economy will have more, smaller firms linked together by protocols. .. It’s worth pointing out that these networks are inherently global, and any regulatory questions global as well." - Chris Berg, Sinclair Davidson and Jason Potts [2]
Description[edit] "The Nobel laureate Oliver Williamson distinguishes between U-form companies and M-form companies. Traditional U-form companies are unitary — their units are divided by business process (for instance, accounting, human resources, component manufacturing, assembly) and are not treated as separate cost centres. M-form companies are multidivisional — their units are self-contained divisions that report profits and losses to an umbrella central body. They’re fully owned by a parent company, but they tend to have their own business services (accounting and human resources departments, for instance) and even market relationships. But now we see a new corporate form — the V-form network — made possible because thanks to the application of distributed ledger technology to supply chain problems. These V-form networks consist of a number of fully independent companies that effectively operate as one vertically integrated company through blockchain technology, coordinated and supplied by a third party. This is a big change to the nature of the firm. We can already see V-form networks in the real world. They date as far back as January. It is surprising the economics community haven’t noticed them yet. ...
Blockchains can work to coordinate supply chains without the need for either (traditional) vertical integration or regulation. The vertical integration is outsourced to a distributed ledger. The blockchain provides the managerial service that coordinates each ‘unit’ (that is, firm) in the supply chain. Regulators in any country can deal any firm in the supply chain as if it was a small unit of a larger, global company. Each firm in the supply chain get the benefits of vertical integration through a network rather than a hierarchy.
...
In the V-form network, the blockchain’s token establishes the consortium, and incentivizes cooperative behaviour. The token also serves to move rents around the network. In this way, the blockchain provides a market mechanism to solve the sort of bargaining problems described by another Nobel laureate, Ronald Coase, that may occur as the network operates. Outsourced vertical integration could be applied to many industries that are now integrated. Energy firms that currently integrate the exploration, production, generation, and retail of electricity might be better decomposed, with blockchains and tokens taking the place of head offices. The token economy, rather than energy regulators, could make decisions about the distribution of rents around the network." ( https://medium.com/cryptoeconomics-australia/outsourcing-vertical-integratio... )
Example[edit] The IBM and Maersk TradeTech[edit] Chris Berg, Sinclair Davidson and Jason Potts: "Two weeks into 2018, IBM and the shipping giant Maersk announced a joint venture to develop a digital supply chain management system on their Hyperledger blockchain platform. Hyperledger is a private blockchain which requires permission to access. In a previous Cryptoeconomics piece, we described how international trade is an information problem. As goods are shipped around the world, they are accompanied by information — really stacks of paperwork — that describe their provenance, destinations, regulatory and tax liabilities and so on. In the IBM-Maersk system, each firm and bureaucracy in the supply chain — producers, shippers, port authorities, regulators, importers, retailers — will access and update a shared blockchain ledger containing all the information needed by each organisation. And each organisation would have access to that information everywhere, ensuring complete visibility on where goods are in the world and which economic and regulatory hurdles they next need to overcome." ( https://medium.com/cryptoeconomics-australia/outsourcing-vertical-integratio... )
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens