Comrade-Z
27th August 2006, 09:28
We are probably all aware that Marx recognized increasing "centralization" in society and saw that as, arguably, an inherently progressive trend in history. However, I think was he was seeing in a broader sense was increasingly connectivity, increasing social interaction, which, at the time, happened to take the form of centralization. Allow me to briefly explain:
Imagine a dozen or so "nodes" in a network. There are 3 basic ways in which these nodes can be connected into a network: through a trail (one node leads to the next node, which leads to the next node, etc.), a centralized web (in which a central node connects with all other nodes), and a more or less totally interconnected web (where every node has a direct link with every other node). The trail requires the least number of links, and there is the least amount of redundancy here--if one link is broken, the whole trail fails to function. Drug traffickers often use trail networks: one drug runner in Columbia passes off the stuff to a contact in Costa Rica, who passes it off to a contact in El Salvador, who passes it off to a CIA agent :lol: ,who passes it off to some inner-city drug dealers in the U.S., and so on....there are many types of organizations which use the centralized web method of social organization: governments, corporations, etc. This type of organization requires a few more links. There is more redundancy. If one node loses its link to the central node, damage is confined to that one node--all the rest go on functioning as before. And, finally, a good example of the totally interconnected web is the Internet. This requires the most links of all. There is a lot of redundancy. If one link is broken, a particular node can still contact whatever other node it needs to contact, although perhaps needing to go through an intermediary node.
Imagine that, at first, these nodes are entirely without links to each other. This is the most primitive stage of human history--isolated rural tribal bands without contact with each other. However, soon tribal bands start to come into contact with each other, and with enough frequency that they begin to develop common patterns of communication. Suddenly two nodes are linked together. Perhaps one of the tribal bands comes into extended contact with another tribal band. A second link is created, and a trail network is created. Human society progresses like this for a while, with isolated trails expanding.
Soon the trails come into contact with each other. However, the nodes (groups of people) involved only have a limited number of resources to work with to establish links. In this circumstance, the most efficient way to connect the most nodes with the fewest links is by having all nodes go through a central node. It appears that we have more "centralization." This is the stage that society was traversing when Marx was alive--isolated rural outposts and feudal manors were shedding their confusing trails of lineage and fealties and connecting through centralized state apparatuses. The means of production, the factories, etc. were undergoing the same thing. And while this centralization may be true for the meantime, this is not the long-term trend, as we shall see. The long-term trend, instead, is towards more connectivity, towards people becoming more socially dependent on each other (with labor becoming more social in character, with more division of labor, etc. that that might imply).
At a certain point, it becomes possible to invest resources in creating direct links between individual nodes. This increases redundancy and makes it so that if one node or link fails (such as the central node, most notably), then the other nodes can re-route their connections, compensate, and still connect with each other. This is the promise that the Internet brings to human society--no longer are we dependent on the central node for our connections with each other. Now we can make our own direct links with every single other node. We begin to take more responsibility for our social organization and begin to acquire an awareness of being "masters of our own destiny." A centralized node is no longer important. "Horizontal" communication becomes more and more ubiquitous to the point that it can no longer be properly called "horizontal," but instead appears as a great mass of links, with the old "vertical" links becoming more and more average in their significance and indistinguishable from other types of links. Now, when the centralized node screws up, people rush to utilize their own connections and rely on their own nodes--themselves--and coordinate with all the other nodes they can connect with directly. Stateless communism, the joining of individual sovereignty and collective harmony, emerges.
No longer do we have increased centralization, but increased decentralization, although all throughout we have increased connectivity, increased socialism, increased community, in a word.
Therefore, I say to those of you who cling to centralization as the only model for coordinating activities: you are living in the past! At one point centralization may have been conducive to forging more connectivity and more coordination, but no longer. Bury your deceased doctrines and embrace the possibilities that the modern world offers in terms of social organization. We must forge more connectivity, more coordination, and for this we need not more centralization, but less!
Edit:
To further elaborate...not too long ago there was a thread about whether or not it would be theoretically possible for someone to "take down the internet," and the consensus was that the Internet is well-nigh indestructible. Well, then, what if we had a social movement like the Internet? Each affinity group or workers' council would be like a node, able to connect to every other affinity group or workers' council as it so wished. Just as funny internet memes and good websites race around the Internet, good ideas would race around this social movement through the multitude of nodes. Just as crappy websites are marginalized and ignored, bad ideas would be marginalized and ignored (unless you think proletarians are too stupid, in the end, to know what's in their self-interest as a class--in which case, what hope is there for proletarian self-emancipation?). The workers' councils can federate into "webrings" as they see fit. The authorities try to suppress one node--no problem, the social movement continues to function just about the same as before. There is no centralized organization to infiltrate or central leader to assassinate.
So, what do we need for this to become a reality? Well, we have the links. All we need are the nodes--the "websites"--the affinity groups and workers' councils, in other words. Because you can have an "Internet" with only 3 websites (well, you could, but it would be a pretty crappy internet). One of the reasons why the Internet is so rich is because there are so many contributors to it and so many websites. So, we need like hundreds, even thousands of workers' councils and affinity groups. How can we help bring that about? Who the hell knows....
Imagine a dozen or so "nodes" in a network. There are 3 basic ways in which these nodes can be connected into a network: through a trail (one node leads to the next node, which leads to the next node, etc.), a centralized web (in which a central node connects with all other nodes), and a more or less totally interconnected web (where every node has a direct link with every other node). The trail requires the least number of links, and there is the least amount of redundancy here--if one link is broken, the whole trail fails to function. Drug traffickers often use trail networks: one drug runner in Columbia passes off the stuff to a contact in Costa Rica, who passes it off to a contact in El Salvador, who passes it off to a CIA agent :lol: ,who passes it off to some inner-city drug dealers in the U.S., and so on....there are many types of organizations which use the centralized web method of social organization: governments, corporations, etc. This type of organization requires a few more links. There is more redundancy. If one node loses its link to the central node, damage is confined to that one node--all the rest go on functioning as before. And, finally, a good example of the totally interconnected web is the Internet. This requires the most links of all. There is a lot of redundancy. If one link is broken, a particular node can still contact whatever other node it needs to contact, although perhaps needing to go through an intermediary node.
Imagine that, at first, these nodes are entirely without links to each other. This is the most primitive stage of human history--isolated rural tribal bands without contact with each other. However, soon tribal bands start to come into contact with each other, and with enough frequency that they begin to develop common patterns of communication. Suddenly two nodes are linked together. Perhaps one of the tribal bands comes into extended contact with another tribal band. A second link is created, and a trail network is created. Human society progresses like this for a while, with isolated trails expanding.
Soon the trails come into contact with each other. However, the nodes (groups of people) involved only have a limited number of resources to work with to establish links. In this circumstance, the most efficient way to connect the most nodes with the fewest links is by having all nodes go through a central node. It appears that we have more "centralization." This is the stage that society was traversing when Marx was alive--isolated rural outposts and feudal manors were shedding their confusing trails of lineage and fealties and connecting through centralized state apparatuses. The means of production, the factories, etc. were undergoing the same thing. And while this centralization may be true for the meantime, this is not the long-term trend, as we shall see. The long-term trend, instead, is towards more connectivity, towards people becoming more socially dependent on each other (with labor becoming more social in character, with more division of labor, etc. that that might imply).
At a certain point, it becomes possible to invest resources in creating direct links between individual nodes. This increases redundancy and makes it so that if one node or link fails (such as the central node, most notably), then the other nodes can re-route their connections, compensate, and still connect with each other. This is the promise that the Internet brings to human society--no longer are we dependent on the central node for our connections with each other. Now we can make our own direct links with every single other node. We begin to take more responsibility for our social organization and begin to acquire an awareness of being "masters of our own destiny." A centralized node is no longer important. "Horizontal" communication becomes more and more ubiquitous to the point that it can no longer be properly called "horizontal," but instead appears as a great mass of links, with the old "vertical" links becoming more and more average in their significance and indistinguishable from other types of links. Now, when the centralized node screws up, people rush to utilize their own connections and rely on their own nodes--themselves--and coordinate with all the other nodes they can connect with directly. Stateless communism, the joining of individual sovereignty and collective harmony, emerges.
No longer do we have increased centralization, but increased decentralization, although all throughout we have increased connectivity, increased socialism, increased community, in a word.
Therefore, I say to those of you who cling to centralization as the only model for coordinating activities: you are living in the past! At one point centralization may have been conducive to forging more connectivity and more coordination, but no longer. Bury your deceased doctrines and embrace the possibilities that the modern world offers in terms of social organization. We must forge more connectivity, more coordination, and for this we need not more centralization, but less!
Edit:
To further elaborate...not too long ago there was a thread about whether or not it would be theoretically possible for someone to "take down the internet," and the consensus was that the Internet is well-nigh indestructible. Well, then, what if we had a social movement like the Internet? Each affinity group or workers' council would be like a node, able to connect to every other affinity group or workers' council as it so wished. Just as funny internet memes and good websites race around the Internet, good ideas would race around this social movement through the multitude of nodes. Just as crappy websites are marginalized and ignored, bad ideas would be marginalized and ignored (unless you think proletarians are too stupid, in the end, to know what's in their self-interest as a class--in which case, what hope is there for proletarian self-emancipation?). The workers' councils can federate into "webrings" as they see fit. The authorities try to suppress one node--no problem, the social movement continues to function just about the same as before. There is no centralized organization to infiltrate or central leader to assassinate.
So, what do we need for this to become a reality? Well, we have the links. All we need are the nodes--the "websites"--the affinity groups and workers' councils, in other words. Because you can have an "Internet" with only 3 websites (well, you could, but it would be a pretty crappy internet). One of the reasons why the Internet is so rich is because there are so many contributors to it and so many websites. So, we need like hundreds, even thousands of workers' councils and affinity groups. How can we help bring that about? Who the hell knows....