Define #occupy? Are you serious?

How focused and defined should be the #occupy movement?

There are a lot of voices within the #occupy movement calling to define the movement, to come up with a clear list of claims, or with a clear action plan. I have also came across a lot of articles arguing that the #occupy movement doesn’t need more structure. In this post I am going to give my opinion in support of a broad and only loosely defined movement, relying on my own understanding, which was built over the last 6 months of active involvement with the movement.

Clay Shirky - Hierarchy & Leadership

"Many of the relative advantages of hierarchy are now reduced." 

The informational advantage of hierarchies is reduced. 

Institutions have lost their monopoly on tight management of information and thigh coordination of action. Now large distributed groups can share information and coordinate through social networking. 

This increases individual power and group power! This is the Multitude social movement!

By AllOfUs

Clay Shirky: Institutions vs. collaboration

Important concept

• coordination costs. 
• power law distribution, 80-20 curve, or long-tail distribution. 

The classic answer to getting a group to do something was the institution (centralized organization based on power relations). Today, the costs of communication, which is fundamental for coordination, has fallen. It is now possible to put the coordination into the infrastructure and to reduce the need for planning.  

The institution asks for:

• explicit goals 
• management, 
• enforcement of goals (carrots and sticks) 
• structure (economic, legal, physical, etc) 
• exclusion (cannot higher anyone) --> professional class 

Collaboration infrastructure: moving the problem to the people instead of moving the people to the problem, shedding institutional costs, adding flexibility. Decentralization, openness, inclusiveness. 

Tension between the institution as an enabler and institution as an obstacle. "Many of the relative advantages of hierarchy are now reduced."

It's all abut value! Open collaborative networks are mostly value-based organizations, and are increasingly replacing institutions (power-based organizations) on different arenas. 

By AllOfUs

Seth Godin on the tribes we lead

By AllOfUs

Organization in production, the machine vs the social paradigm

I think the machine paradigm is essentially out of the picture, but not in every domain of our complex economy. As long as there will be hard jobs there will be control and over-functionalization of the worker. I don't see a coal mining operation adopting the social model. Only when robots will take over these harsh tasks we will be able to avoid treating human beings like biological automata. Before that day comes, we can continue our work on improving the situation of billions of us out there.

I also want to add that the social paradigm is not imposed from up to bottom. It doesn't come from somebody up there deciding to make society a better place. The elite doesn't have too much appreciation for the lower casts. Eugenics is still very alive up there, under various forms. Look at the "Singularity" movement for example. I am sick and tired of these talking heads in shiny suits telling us in our face that there's too many of us on Earth, comparing us with parasites infecting our "Mother Planet". This re-valuation of the human being is a button-up movement. The individual emerges with its full capacities because he has room to express himself. The new technology gives him the tools and the environment to do so. He can now escape monopolies and express his creativity freely. He can directly exchange with his peers, and for the value he produces he can get a buck in return, without having to beg for a stand in a highly controlled marketplace.

Some entrepreneurs have decided to experiment with this "social economy" idea, because the individual had this window of opportunity to express himself, to demonstrate that we are intelligent, creative, motivated creatures, to demonstrate that all social casts are based on fabulations, are merely social constructs. This is how Google made it big. Once the social paradigm demonstrated its efficacy in turning a group of people into a very creative and productive enterprise, some of those up there, who still control the major part of our resources, are trying to turn the "social thing" for their own benefit. Those of them who really see what is happening, who understand that the new technology is totally remodeling society, those who are not sleeping in their ignorance believing that the Internet is only for porn and for playing online games, are trying to come up with new models of social control. But I don't see any brilliant idea emerging. I don't even see how this would be possible. You may think that I am blinded by my optimism, but I really believe that the multitude is emancipating.


By AllOfUs

How to invest in the future economy

This article is my answer to a post by Ian Bentley (May 20, 2010) on SICU, After we strip away all the crap ... where does the SAVVY investor put his money?
 
I say invest in natural resources and in humans. The first category doesn't just include established resources like oil, water, metals, etc... but also new ones under development like solar energy, high-tech materials, and others. The second category is not so easy to define. Let's start by saying to invest in innovative and hard working people who understand the new emerging society.


In my opinion, the entrepreneur of tomorrow is a community builder, a democratic leader, a good mediator, a giver, who understands how to cement strong synergistic relations, to create inter-dependencies, who knows how to empower, not only to motivate, and above all, one who believes in humans. Only such person can unleash the full creative and productive capacity of large masses, now strongly interconnected. Only such person can align the interests of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of independent and empowered individuals.

I think it's just about creating the proper environment that increases creativity and productivity. In every epoch we did it with the means of that time. Economical entities are subject to evolutionary lows. They compete with each other, they rely on scarce resources, they "die", they "mutate", etc. I can conjecture that at every epoch we had an equilibrium, a stable ecosystem. The most creative and productive entities at that particular time were at the top, driving the society. Moreover, I believe that economical forces are stronger than human forces. It's the economy that shapes the human mind, not vice versa. The means of production of the epoch lock humans into a specific web of relations, institutions, which in turn shape the human spirit. We adapt to survive in the context, which is itself defined by things we don't control like the climate, resources, tools, relations we MUST forge to accomplish vital tasks, etc.

At some point in history, one could extract potential from a group of people with a whip and a spiteful God. These people had to be kept ignorant, their self esteem had to be destroyed. This was possible in a world where information didn't flow, where the levels of communication, collaboration and coordination between slaves were ineffective. The printing press made democracy spread. The whip was replaced with a carrot, and God with desires. The control did not disappear, it only got more sophisticated. The machine was also introduced. It offered tremendous production potential. Our relation to it completely changed the way we treat each other. People got more educated, but not to become independent, complete human beings. They got specialized, compartmentalized, functionalized for the new economy. They are still unable to understand the system they leave in, unable to communicate, to collaborate. They are still dependent. The corporation was the answer to this era, the most efficient economical entity. The system which could extract the most from a group of individuals, in concert with an intricate system of financial, political, and cultural institutions, ultimately shaped to its image. But it went too far, it destroyed families, it overworked almost everybody, it lobotomized 90% of the population... It spread almost to destroy its host societies.

The new digital technology brings the next big change. It creates a new climate. Never in human history a technology spread so fast, touched so many people, in such a short time. It is a popular technology, putting powerful tools in everybody's hands. It is a democratic technology, it doesn't discriminate on wealth, race, sex, culture... It enhances communication, collaboration and coordination. It empowers... This is why it is so potent. The massive change it is causing is just starting to become visible. What will be the wining economical entity emerging in this new context? Obviously the one capable to better extract creativity and productivity. This is the one we should invest in!

But this time the population will be informed, empowered, aware. How can you deny it? If the printing press raised the level of education and self awareness to this level, imagine what will the Internet do... Moreover, this technology, by the nature of the tools it offers, it naturally rewards the social beings, the ones who are open to share, to collaborate. Individualistic behavior is not punished, but it becomes less effective. Organic network-type organizations will thrive. Collaboration, openness, and sharing will replace protectionism, secrecy, and individualism. Not because messiah is coming back. Not because all of a sudden humans become spiritually enlightened. Only because a new economical context is emerging, in which these new values convey a better chance to survive. Yes, the world is going to get better, thanks to our technology, thanks to the human spirit who is always striving to surpass itself.

In very era, wicked individuals have tried to increase the cooperation of people within the organizations they've controlled, taking into account the human spirit at that time. After the communist revolutionary hype wore off, the masters of communist societies lost the cooperation of their subjects. These systems have collapsed. How are you going to gain the cooperation of the newly emerging human spirit? It all comes down to individual cooperation...

But there is also another thing. In times of transition from one social order to another entrepreneurs must be able to find new ways to get to resources. These periods are normally accompanied of financial and economical downturns, not necessarily because the needs of the people are reduced, but because the established financial and economical systems on which these societies rely are clogged. As new means production and exchange emerge, they interact with the old ones and introduce some degree of disorder in the entire system. Moreover, those who are in control of the classical means fight to maintain their control, which restricts access to resources to the new comers. The new comer must be skilled in finding alternative ways to access to resources, new ways  for funding, new ways to attract human capital, new ways to get to natural resources, new ways to market and distribute products. The new entrepreneurs in times of transition need to be skilled in the art of bypassing old established monopolies.    

I will invest in these people and organizations who are well positioned to thrive in the future I just described.

By AllOfUs