The Future of Civilization. VII
12 Transition
12.1 Where Does It Go, Again
So, in the most general terms, if monopolization is stopped somehow, production and social development move toward increasing free time or, in other words, freedom of every individual human being involved which translates into creativity and dialogue in small groups. Social structures and mechanisms working to support those trends will get more and more power, impetus and future. Anything and everything working against — is condemned to die.
In a somewhat symbolic form the future civilization features:
Individual Freedom <=> creativity <=> dialogue in small groups <=> production/services/research/education/etc … And we need to get used to this.
And again:
What is to implement, support & promote these interrelations gets power, impetus & future.
What works against those interrelations is condemned to die.
This is just the logic. Which for me is just another way to say: This is the reality, inevitable.
I cannot tell exact scenario(s) and time frames of the change. So? That can be worked on and out. We foresee final outcome and that outcome may come up sooner than we expect.
12.2 On the Transition, Not Much
I believe some significant things about near future of civilization were said. It was also said the exact scenario of the transition into the socium of small groups is not known. However, abstract answer to this is obvious: Small groups will take over in competition with big guys. Particularly, the following developments may take place.
Some big guys will gradually rethink and consequently reorganize themselves into specific webs of increasingly independent small groups. They will do this naturally, being driven by market forces, in order to just take upper hand over competition.
Some big guys will not do this and loose to webs of small groups.
Some laws will be incepted in order to help small groups to develop, act, interrelate, and interact. That may happen in the historically ordinary way: Small groups will grow into powerful social force and become able to influence political processes. Or that may happen in a not so ordinary way: A society will try to reach future at will and get necessary laws incepted beforehand. This is a fantasy I like.
Some laws will be rethought and rewritten in order to help big guys to reconstruct themselves into webs of small groups.
Something else will happen induced by the future working on the present … as that always happens in cases we describe as progress, social evolution or revolutions.
12.3 Obstacles
12.3.1 General Idea
What could be the obstacles on the way to the future? This is a rhetoric question — the obstacles must be monopolies of any kind, to any extent and just big guys of any kind managed by bureaucracy.
Why? Is there any connection between notions of “monopoly” and “behemoth?”
The connection exists and it is better seen through the lens of “crude communism.” What is a behemoth? For example, a business. The majority of employees do not own the establishment they work for and, in terms of ownership, are equal inside the establishment. Even if they are not equal outside, that makes no difference inside, logically and thus in reality. That means we can legitimately apply the theory of crude communism inside a behemoth with all corresponding consequences.
This exact reasoning is applicable to behemoths of all types: NGOs, political parties, government agencies, business networks, trade unions, International charities or other establishments — just any and all with the same reservation — if a given entity is not structured as a web of independent small groups (as it was, for example, with Red Cross in its inception).
12.3.2 Competition at Transition Time
We can disregard for now big guys’ evil will or even unintentionally bad conduct, which is bad just because… I believe “small groups economy,” “small groups culture,” small groups’ everything will compete with and win over big guys. It is easy to predict because behemoths are controlled by bureaucracy, which makes them largely ineffective, in principle.
We touched upon a question already whether society must help future to come sooner or not? We see another turn in this question now: That is, should society make big guys go for good?
Honestly, I don’t know how to approach the question theoretically. This is why I decided to turn to examples. Some got in my mailbox with news when I started working on the paper. I want to share two. Maybe, they are not that terrible as many from the past but they do tell me behemoths have to go. I would only asked how to make them go as painlessly as possible? Two sections below are just large excerpts from the articles I received.
12.3.3 A Case
This Start-Up Says It Wants to Fight Poverty. A Food Stamp Giant Is Blocking It
By Steve Lohr. The New Yourk Times On-line edition, April 23, 2018
Four years ago, Jimmy Chen left a lucrative perch as a product manager at Facebook to found Propel, what he calls an ‘anti-poverty software company.’
In 2016, the Brooklyn start-up released a smartphone app that lets food stamp recipients easily look up how much money was left in their accounts, rather than call an 800 number or keep paper receipts. Today, one million food stamp participants use Propel’s app, and the start-up has added features like links to food coupons, healthy recipes, budgeting tools and job opportunities.
But in the last few months, the Propel app has been hobbled or become unavailable in many states, sometimes for weeks. Behind the slowdown is a big government contractor, Conduent, which runs the food stamp networks in 25 states, including New York, California and Pennsylvania. In those states, where 60 percent of Propel’s users live, Conduent maintains the database that Propel’s app uses to let people check their accounts.
The Propel-Conduent conflict offers a textbook case of a digital newcomer running into resistance from the old order. The twist is that the newcomer said it did not want to destroy the incumbent but instead build atop it to do good for underserved populations, as well as build a business for itself…
12.3.4 Another Case
“American tech giants are making life tough for startups
Big, rich and paranoid, they have reams of data to help them spot and buy young firms that might challenge them (The Economist | Print edition | Business. May 31st 2018 | SAN FRANCISCO.)
IT IS a classic startup story, but with a twist. Three 20-somethings launched a firm out of a dorm room at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2016, with the goal of using algorithms to predict the reply to an e-mail. In May they were fundraising for their startup, EasyEmail, when Google held its annual conference for software developers and announced a tool similar to EasyEmail’s. Filip Twarowski, its boss, sees Google’s incursion as ‘incredible confirmation’ they are working on something worthwhile. But he also admits that it came as ‘a little bit of a shock’. The giant has scared off at least one prospective backer of EasyEmail, because venture capitalists try to dodge spaces where the tech giants might step.
The behemoths’ annual conferences, held to announce new tools, features, and acquisitions, always “send shock waves of fear through entrepreneurs”, says Mike Driscoll, a partner at Data Collective, an investment firm. ‘Venture capitalists attend to see which of their companies are going to get killed next.’ But anxiety about the tech giants on the part of startups and their investors goes much deeper than such events. Venture capitalists, such as Albert Wenger of Union Square Ventures, who was an early investor in Twitter, now talk of a ‘kill-zone’ around the giants. Once a young firm enters, it can be extremely difficult to survive. Tech giants try to squash startups by copying them, or they pay to scoop them up early to eliminate a threat.
The idea of a kill-zone may bring to mind Microsoft’s long reign in the 1990s, as it embraced a strategy of ‘embrace, extend and extinguish’ and tried to intimidate startups from entering its domain. But entrepreneurs’ and venture capitalists’ concerns are striking because for a long while afterwards, startups had free rein. In 2014 The Economist likened the proliferation of startups to the Cambrian explosion: software made running a startup cheaper than ever and opportunities seemed abundant. (https://www.economist.com/business/2018/06/02/american-tech-giants-are-making-life-tough-for-startups?)”
PS. Future of Civilization
Part 1. Free Market, Monopolies, Crude Communism: https://medium.com/where-does-this-world-go/part-1-8c68d5030757?source=friends_link&sk=7613c0f6aadbb17b89a2b35a0b0195d9
Part 2. Ideals, Reality, Fantasy. Where to Go?: https://medium.com/where-does-this-world-go/the-future-of-civilization-ii-1210d5a0db78?source=friends_link&sk=eded6e79c22067840822f958b3c939f8
Part 3. Ideal Solution, My Wishes, Problem Statement: https://medium.com/where-does-this-world-go/the-future-of-civilization-iii-1548e4295352?source=friends_link&sk=d0f93e2c44f54b06de26480be38f3be2
Part 4. Economy of Free Time, Dialogue of Cultures, Etc.: https://medium.com/where-does-this-world-go/future-of-civilization-iv-57ec15b2d7f0?source=friends_link&sk=041a84363733649a47b403fa4fde98a2
Part 5. Culture, Civilization & Automation: https://medium.com/where-does-this-world-go/the-future-of-civilization-5-4ea72ac2f705?source=friends_link&sk=1b8017e58afa7f33c5120dd73f879f27
Part 6. Socium of Small Groups, Socium of Freedom: https://medium.com/@anatolyvolynets/the-future-of-civilization-small-groups-1033297794c9?source=friends_link&sk=91dddf1ea25c823d33ee80fd5077dadd
Part 7. Transition from Present to Future
Part 8. The Disease of Intellectual Property: https://medium.com/@anatolyvolynets/67ef8718113c?source=friends_link&sk=1da4f7c199d2c8e08f2b20b84d7d5682
