Just finished The Player of Games (Iain M Banks) – also really enjoyable.  Less cinematic than Consider Phlebas (though still nicely paced), and a bit more to chew on philosophically.  The contrast of the hierarchical Azadian empire and the egalitarian Culture is interesting.  Gurgeh, the main character, from the Culture, finds some appeal in the way things work in Azad.  Azad feels like a caricature of Western society as it is today – superficially advanced and urbane, but with some real darkness hidden away, out of sight.

Really enjoyed Consider Phlebas (Iain M. Banks).  It was a rip-roaring read.  Very visual and cinematic, I can still conjure up a picture of a lot of the scenes in my head.  Enjoyed the brief intro it gives to the Culture, too – the post-scarcity socialist society that are featured in a lot more books in the Culture series.  Interested to see how that’s explored further.  I’ve just started reading the next in the series, The Player of Games.

After this I think I’ll try some Kim Stanley Robinson – more speculative socialist futures as far as I understand.

Interesting argument that we should view protocols as the digital means of production, more so than platforms. And that ‘protocol cooperatives’ will do more to break down capitalism than platform coops will. I think the main argument being that platform coops are inherently centralised, and that as far as challenging capital goes, we should be striving for decentralised architectures. I think the argument being we should have coops that interoperate on top of a shared protocol; not one coop that dominates an entire market with a platform.

Relates somewhat to the Statebook article, which argued that the state would serve us better if it focused on building and promoting shared protocols, not on building a Facebook alternative.

If neoliberalism is a class project, then Silicon Valley is the industrial manifestation of neoliberalism applied to technology. Silicon Valley is a class project. To abolish it needs large structural transformation. We need to change the balance of class forces, tipping it away from capital and in favour of labour. Worker organisation from below, with a change in conception of what a tech worker is. Start taking lucrative technologies out of the capital-accumulation process.

“Tackling the problem at the root requires that we *abolish* Silicon Valley.”

https://newsocialist.org.uk/beyond-taming-the-tech-giants/

Digital technology’s effect on the environment.

It uses a lot of raw materials; produces a lot of CO2 in manufacture; and the ‘cloud’ uses a vast amount of energy in use.

“What we really need is a whole new way of thinking about digital technology. In a world focused on ownership driven by conspicuous consumption, in the thralls of a digital revolution, we have created a sprawling global beast that might consume our society as well as ever greater amounts of energy and resources.”

Things we should do: use materials more efficiently; make things more repairable; use renewable energy.

I’d probably also add ‘abolish capitalism’ to the list.

https://neweconomics.org/2018/11/disrupting-the-climate

Really good article by @ntnsndr: https://hackernoon.com/decentralizing-everything-never-seems-to-work-2bb0461bd168.

I’m intrigued by the idea of where centralisation arises in decentralised systems. Is the protocol by which decentralised apps communicate a point of centralisation? Maybe you need some things centralised to facilitate decentralisation. Is that then a single point of failure?

Personally think it’s healthy to see a plurality of decentralised protocols, and it’s even better to see them bridging to each other. All about the bridges.

I really like the Personal Data Store concept. You own your data, and you choose to let apps interact with it for your benefit. It’s pretty much what the #indieweb is doing (though perhaps for the more limited subset of things that don’t need verified claims).

I don’t like the commercial nature of most PDS offerings (including Solid now).

Either way, some good general food for thought in this article.

“It means saying ‘here is a path to limitless abundance’, rather than calling for civilisation to be placed in a straight jacket.”

Following on the previous ‘degrowth vs accelerationism’ article, a view from what the other article would call the left accelerationist approach.

I wouldn’t call it accelerationism though. Just a harnessing of technology for the aims of equality and abundance. But not blind techno-optimism.

Good article.

Great piece by Cory Doctorow on the importance of repair.

“This is the golden age of repairs, a moment made for a renaissance of shade-tree mechanics, electronics tinkerers, jackleg fixit shops, and mom-and-pop service depots. It has to be: our planet, our pocketbooks, and our neighborhoods all benefit when our property lasts longer, works better and does more.”

Some good musings on the relationship between post-nationalism and post-capitalism.

Hypothesis: “that the ‘municipal’ – whether we’re talking about towns, cities or city-regions – might be a fundamentally important scale at which, and through which, to generate progressive movements towards post-capitalism”

Some good thorny issues that need examining in the ‘Our questions’ section.

“I regard cooperatives as a kind of commons, a mode of commoning that has made itself legible to the industrial-era state and market. […] But I wouldn’t claim cooperatives are sufficient. They’re a starting point, a gateway to more diverse and widespread commoning.”

Nathan Schneider interview by Michel Bauwens.

Everything for everyone: Michel Bauwens interviews Nathan Schneider

Currently reading: Doughnut Economics by Kate Raworth, ISBN: 9781847941398

Currently reading: Perdido Street Station by China Miéville, ISBN: 9780333781722

Interesting read about some of the issues faced at the system level as cooperatives get large and embedded in global markets. As experienced by Mondragon.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19704-mondragon-and-the-system-problem

Damn.

Thoughts?

I think the article could explain better what it is specifically that both the left the far-right are doing with cryptocurrency. And in what way the far-right is one step ahead.

Really nice article by @ntnsndr on the possibilities of coops in the digital space (and what they’re already achieving).  Quality rather than unnecessary growth; data privacy; federation rather than centralization; harnessing ideas like blockchain for trust; and funding new ventures through cooperative means. Exciting times. (h/t @Matt_Noyes)

Interesting to see a reference to “municipal” socialism from JC. Also interesting to see the top-level intervention when a local authority is doing something dodgy. I agree with the sentiment of the intervention but how municipalist is it?

I’m not clued up enough to know what the final result of the blockchain hype vs antihype ping pong match will be. Ditto UBI. This article is about both. Nevertheless, regardless of the means, I like the ends they’re aiming for: decentralization, degrowth, reinvigorated local communities, post-capitalism. https://www.fastcompany.com/40482312/can-basic-income-plus-the-blockchain-build-a-new-economic-system

Summary

• Our consumption patterns have huge environmental, social and health impacts.
• Consumption is a corporate strategy.
• We need a systemic change, not just tweaks to consumerism.

Thoughts

Good article, backed up by plenty of stats.  But it’s stronger on the “our consumption model is broken” part, a bit weak on “here’s how to build a new one.” The plan for system change doesn’t feel very fleshed out, with some loose suggestions, and not much as to how we actually achieve the suggestions.  Maybe that’s explored further elsewhere.

Continue reading →