In that they both approach structures from a multi-level conceptual map, with units acting autonomously at each level but communicating between them. The polycentrism thing.
Would be interesting to compare and contrast them.
‘a sociotechnical system that functioned as a disseminated network, not a hierarchy’
‘treated information, not authority, as the basis for action’
‘prevented top-down tynranny by creating a distributed network of shared information’.
I know nothing of the details, but the general overview sounds pretty good so far: ‘It offered a balance between centralized and decentralized control that prevented both the tyranny of authoritarianism and the chaos of total freedom.’
A mixture of horizontal autonomy with channels for vertical communication and stabilisation.
‘We must employ a divest/invest strategy to the technology we use if we are to combat surveillance capitalism and build radical infrastructure that reflects our vision of the world.’
‘When a technology does not meet one of these criteria we will organize to help raise a project to that standard. When we need to use corporate technology, we use it strategically and subversively – always on the lookout for alternatives.’
https://incarceratedworkers.org/resources/iwoc-technology-policy
Good advice, Stafford Beer, good advice…