Eyal Herzog learned a hard lesson when his world-beating online video site was overtaken by Youtube. He learned that the internet, by lowering the barrier to entry, enables a 'long tail'. In other words if you want to own a sector, you shouldn't worry about the leaders in that sector, as much as supporting the 99% of others who want to be in that space. Eyal and his team understood that if the kind of democratisation that YouTube brought to video happened to money, then there need never be a scarcity of money again.
In my corner of the internet, a lot of people and groups have been calling for a new kind of social network, not only me: [2013] [2014] [2016] [2017], Its not only an objection to Facebook, but they want community organising tools very different to Facebook.
This post follows on from Global groupware requirements, which describes the software a lot of people seem to be looking for. The distinction between a website with content and a web application is becoming sharper, and its clear that systems in the paradigm of content management (like Wordpress and Drupal) are not optimal for social organising.
Given my enthusiasm for the launch of the IMA, I regret not being able to conference with you in Glasgow. Its a field I've dedicated my life to for almost a decade.
As a complementary currency engineer, I come across basic income ideas of social justice all the time, but I don't see them as my territory. It is a way of sharing wealth which we collectively own or create. Ideally it would be enough money to reduce or eliminate the imperative on people to sell their labour, say, a few hundred Euros per month.
Despite being repetitive, and often dense, Bookchin writing in the 60s, 70s and 80s makes arguments I've never heard before, and manages to be more convincing and more optimistic than many of his contemporaries, many of whom, he argues are shallow, woolly, misanthropic, or totalitarian!
This lucid and readable book traverses monetary history and philosophy to explain why money is no longer a tool for social justice, and indicates the kinds of solutions that could set it straight.
Despite being repetitive, and often dense, Bookchin writing in the 60s, 70s and 80s makes arguments I've never heard before, and manages to be more convincing and more optimistic than many of his contemporaries, many of whom, he argues are shallow, woolly, misanthropic, or totalitarian!