Here is an interesting thought to post to a mastodon instance. From Dmytri Kleiner via P2P Foundation:
"Going back to an early Internet architecture of cooperative, decentralized servers, as projects such as Diaspora, GNU Social, and others are attempting to do, will not work. This is precisely the sort of architecture that anti-disintermediation was designed to defeat. Decentralized systems need to be designed to be counter-anti-disintermediationist."
@wu_lee he is right, but not for the reasons he provides. The problem is that platforms like Diaspora, GNU Social, Mastodon etc... all rely on ISPs to exist. Kleiner's idea of "[platforms] run[ning] on the computers of the platform’s users" won't solve a thing: ISPs can still lock people the fuck out of the internet as they please. Cooperatively owned ISPs are the only long-term solution to the anti-disintermediation problem.
@Antanicus: do you mean "ISP" as in a "internet connection provider" (like AOL, BT, Virgin Media) rather than "hosting service" (like whatever runs social.coop)?
So agreed, as but both can be counter-d15n'ed, wouldn't full anti-counter-d15n of the *gateways* (as I think you mean) require a mesh network, because the telco infrastructure is private and c-d15n'able?
> do you mean "ISP" as in a "internet connection provider" (like AOL, BT, Virgin Media) rather than "hosting service" (like whatever runs social.coop)?
-Yes, ISP stands for "internet service provider". Some of those also offer hosting services too, but that's not relevant.
- the telco infrastructure is private and c-d15n'able? That's why we need to overtake it and cooperatively own it. Local telcos need be the main target for this
@Antanicus @wu_lee alas there was even a point in Britain (late 19th/early 20th century where many telcos *were* locally owned (albeit by the Council) if not private companies; but because they *wouldn't* federate the Govt nationalised them into the Post Office and (as political views changed) later privatised as British Telecom, with the exception of Hull in Northern England. This remained in Council ownership until quite recently when the *citizens* of Hull *voted* to let it be privatised.
indeed. I am cynical about anything mentioning "blockchain", same with "devops" or all other buzzwords common in tech.
existing co-op ownership model *works* and has worked since 1880s and even survives in ruthlessly competitive environments such as retail.
I often get cycling jackets and winter gear online from a workers co-op in Scotland/North of England (folk there more likely to ride in winter so they sell better items than competitors in the South!)
@vfrmedia Agreed, and Cynicism++
Nevertheless, here we are on social media :) Also, see comments about limitations of coops here https://mastodon.social/@kavbojka/99303489020480815
Holochain may be a gimmick, but it is not a blockchain, as the authors are cynics of that too. I hope it could be a tool *for creating* co-op propsperity.
Not the point I meant.
It says otherwise successful co-ops can be undermined by global/free market forces.
Therefore if you advocate co-ops (and I, & I believe Camille and the authors do), and the article is correct, you need a way to counter that "system problem" to really "survive ruthelessly competetive environments like retail".
@wu_lee @alanz @vfrmedia the "system problem" is real, but if they can't see the deep political implications of the #cooperative movement I doubt they will ever solve it. This piece by Commons Transition, on the contrary, gets it right from the very title http://commonstransition.org/catalan-integral-cooperative/
@Antanicus, The authors of the article are from the Next System Project and I believe they are on the same page more or less as the Commons Transition, Bauwens' P2PF, CIC etc.
So yes, they are looking precisely at the deep political implications of the co-op movement - or rather, a larger movement thereof based around "the commons".
I have been involved in coops for 20 years and have mentors who've been involved in coops since the 70s. I struggle to point to examples of coops being forces for broader radical sociopolitical *systemic* change. I'm all ears/eyes if you know of any. But effecting sociopolitical change is not some thing that is "baked" into the cooperative structure and that is why I call for an accompanying explicitly political project.
@Antanicus @vfrmedia @alanz
Well, if taking power away from the capitalist elite and effectively seizing the means of production isn't a "baked in" political trait of coops, then I don't know what a cooperative is... One might argue coops lack a political presence in the traditional sense (ie. A party) but that's further proof of the deeply political message of coops: to hell with the failed representative democracy, let's get things in our hands.
@wu_lee @vfrmedia @alanz
I agree just like unions or political parties, cooperatives need to be conscious and explicit in striving for a better world (even while necessarily trying to survive in the present one). Another part of what allows co-ops to be less radical over time is not sticking to cooperative principles; collective democratic control *is* radical and gives the potential for rising to radical occasions. But even new coops fail on this: https://agaric.coop/blog/short-sad-life-wirth-grocery
@kavbojka @alanz @vfrmedia @wu_lee @Antanicus
social.coop is a cooperatively-run corner of the Fediverse. The instance is democratically governed by its members, who generally share an interest in the co-op model, but topics of discussion range widely.
Our instance is supported by sliding scale contributions of $1-10/mo made via Open Collective. You must have an active Open Collective account to apply for membership; you may set one up here