I learned a few things from Hugo, but I see a category fallacy in this presentation.
What do we call "sectors"? We speak about the public, private and solidarity sectors. We see them as distinct because we can differentiate them unambiguously. We can do that by looking at the property regime that form their basis and at their governance. The public sector rests on public property and uses representative democracy. The private sector rests on private property and uses a hierarchical governance model. The solidarity sector uses share property and direct democracy (one member one vote). Their mission is also distinct: public welfare, profit, communal welfare and benefits. Since their fundamentals are different, their economic models are different.
Hugo's proposition for the 4th sector is: "a hybrid of the state, the market, and the nonprofit sector". In other words, the 4th sector would provide the infrastructure to contain a tight coordination of these 3 sectors. In other words, nothing new here... just a composition of these 3 dimensions. But this proposition excludes a reality that is staring at us since the beginning of then Internet, which is p2p, as a distinct mode of production, with its new property regime (nondominium, ex. the Bitcoin network, no one owns but anyone has permissionless access based on some rules baked in the protocol), a meritocratic governance model (skin in the game, computing power in the case of Bitcoin), stigmergy as mechanism of large scale coordination instead of planning and instead of the market. This is an undeniable reality, the Bitcoin network exists, that cannot be explained from the 3 previously dimensions, public, private and cooperative / solidarity. Non of these sectors rests on the nondominiom form of property, non of them heavily rely on stigmergy. So fine, we can set in motion the creation of an infrastructure that binds the public, private and the solidarity sectors together, but no matter how we mix these 3 dimensions together we will never get this forth reality, which is the reality of transparent permissionless networks that can operate outside of the market and beyond the power of the states (transnational), ex. the Bitcoin network. According to this logic, the Bitcoin network must be subdued to the power of the state (it has been designed to escape the influence of the state) and to the market (although people have built a crypto market, the Bitcoin token is valuable because it is uncapturable, not through a relation between supply and demand, since no one can control the supply, the supply does not respond to demand, it's production / supply is not coupled to fluctuations in demand, no monetary policy possible based on the market, i.e. totally decoupled from the market). So by design, Bitcoin has been architectured to escape state influence and market manipulations. Trying to subdue it to the state and the market means essentially trying to destroy it, which is trying to deny its reality, trying to exclude this new reality.
My proposition is to acknowledge this reality and integrate it into society as a 4th sector. Thus, the 4th sector is not the tissue that binds the existing 3 sectors, it is a new sector that lives in parallel with the other 3, under different principles. Semantically speaking, it makes more sense to call this new reality 4th sector, because it refers to a new mode of production distinct from the other 3. It is a category fallacy to call the binding of the 3 a 4th sector, since there is nothing new, just a combination or the existing 3.
For more details on our interpretation of the 4th sector see this doc.
To my mind you are spot-on in your formulation of the questions/challenge. I see this amazing potential in Web3 for laying the foundation for the new social contracts on a very foundational level, but oftentimes the old mental models tag along and out of lack of clarity on how to structure the new socio-economic 'primitives' people bring in the old memes... Some serious groundwork is needed, I agree.
Seeing the developments and inherent possibilities in the so called 'Web3 space' I always have in mind the image of the great pirates from B. Fuller's Operating Manual:
"I call these sea mastering people the great outlaws or Great Pirates-the G.P.‘s simply because the arbitrary laws enacted or edicted by men on the land could not be extended effectively to control humans beyond their shores and out upon the seas. So the world men who lived on the seas were inherently outlaws, and the only laws that could and did rule them were the natural laws-the physical laws of the universe which when tempestuous were often cruelly devastating. […] Their battles took place out of sight of landed humanity. Most of the losers went to the bottom utterly unbeknownst to historians. Those who stayed on the top of the waters and prospered did so because of their comprehensive capability. That is they were the antithesis of specialists. They had high proficiency in dealing with celestial navigation, the storms, the sea, the men, the ship, economics, biology, geography, history, and science. The wider and more long distanced their anticipatory strategy, the more successful they became."
This article is absolutely evolutionary. And, in my heart, I see that the solutions forged to support parallel sovereign societies ultimately do not create the parallel sovereign societies themselves... first, people must establish circles of trust and love, to agree to live together and cocreate; and this inspiration to cocreate usually forms around a common intention/vision/purpose, some agreement that becomes the standards from which conflicts that inevitably arise will be resolved. That’s where the birth of culture and governance comes in. But first love and trust. The more we weave these conversations back into the heart space, returning to “why”, the more harmonic resonance we will generate, the faster we will transition to hyper local sustainable communities empowered and connected by fintech and a dynamic, vibrant web network.
I learned a few things from Hugo, but I see a category fallacy in this presentation.
What do we call "sectors"? We speak about the public, private and solidarity sectors. We see them as distinct because we can differentiate them unambiguously. We can do that by looking at the property regime that form their basis and at their governance. The public sector rests on public property and uses representative democracy. The private sector rests on private property and uses a hierarchical governance model. The solidarity sector uses share property and direct democracy (one member one vote). Their mission is also distinct: public welfare, profit, communal welfare and benefits. Since their fundamentals are different, their economic models are different.
Hugo's proposition for the 4th sector is: "a hybrid of the state, the market, and the nonprofit sector". In other words, the 4th sector would provide the infrastructure to contain a tight coordination of these 3 sectors. In other words, nothing new here... just a composition of these 3 dimensions. But this proposition excludes a reality that is staring at us since the beginning of then Internet, which is p2p, as a distinct mode of production, with its new property regime (nondominium, ex. the Bitcoin network, no one owns but anyone has permissionless access based on some rules baked in the protocol), a meritocratic governance model (skin in the game, computing power in the case of Bitcoin), stigmergy as mechanism of large scale coordination instead of planning and instead of the market. This is an undeniable reality, the Bitcoin network exists, that cannot be explained from the 3 previously dimensions, public, private and cooperative / solidarity. Non of these sectors rests on the nondominiom form of property, non of them heavily rely on stigmergy. So fine, we can set in motion the creation of an infrastructure that binds the public, private and the solidarity sectors together, but no matter how we mix these 3 dimensions together we will never get this forth reality, which is the reality of transparent permissionless networks that can operate outside of the market and beyond the power of the states (transnational), ex. the Bitcoin network. According to this logic, the Bitcoin network must be subdued to the power of the state (it has been designed to escape the influence of the state) and to the market (although people have built a crypto market, the Bitcoin token is valuable because it is uncapturable, not through a relation between supply and demand, since no one can control the supply, the supply does not respond to demand, it's production / supply is not coupled to fluctuations in demand, no monetary policy possible based on the market, i.e. totally decoupled from the market). So by design, Bitcoin has been architectured to escape state influence and market manipulations. Trying to subdue it to the state and the market means essentially trying to destroy it, which is trying to deny its reality, trying to exclude this new reality.
My proposition is to acknowledge this reality and integrate it into society as a 4th sector. Thus, the 4th sector is not the tissue that binds the existing 3 sectors, it is a new sector that lives in parallel with the other 3, under different principles. Semantically speaking, it makes more sense to call this new reality 4th sector, because it refers to a new mode of production distinct from the other 3. It is a category fallacy to call the binding of the 3 a 4th sector, since there is nothing new, just a combination or the existing 3.
For more details on our interpretation of the 4th sector see this doc.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RPZzvrLx1yy3_HeTYk7dhxyRnNmIk0O6GRC8zRBqbf4/edit
Thanks Michel for sharing.
Dear Michel, Marta from CLEA VUB here.
To my mind you are spot-on in your formulation of the questions/challenge. I see this amazing potential in Web3 for laying the foundation for the new social contracts on a very foundational level, but oftentimes the old mental models tag along and out of lack of clarity on how to structure the new socio-economic 'primitives' people bring in the old memes... Some serious groundwork is needed, I agree.
Seeing the developments and inherent possibilities in the so called 'Web3 space' I always have in mind the image of the great pirates from B. Fuller's Operating Manual:
"I call these sea mastering people the great outlaws or Great Pirates-the G.P.‘s simply because the arbitrary laws enacted or edicted by men on the land could not be extended effectively to control humans beyond their shores and out upon the seas. So the world men who lived on the seas were inherently outlaws, and the only laws that could and did rule them were the natural laws-the physical laws of the universe which when tempestuous were often cruelly devastating. […] Their battles took place out of sight of landed humanity. Most of the losers went to the bottom utterly unbeknownst to historians. Those who stayed on the top of the waters and prospered did so because of their comprehensive capability. That is they were the antithesis of specialists. They had high proficiency in dealing with celestial navigation, the storms, the sea, the men, the ship, economics, biology, geography, history, and science. The wider and more long distanced their anticipatory strategy, the more successful they became."
I'm interested to join this project.
marta.lenartowicz@vub.be
emlenartowicz.medium.com
https://clea.research.vub.be/people/marta-lenartowicz
This article is absolutely evolutionary. And, in my heart, I see that the solutions forged to support parallel sovereign societies ultimately do not create the parallel sovereign societies themselves... first, people must establish circles of trust and love, to agree to live together and cocreate; and this inspiration to cocreate usually forms around a common intention/vision/purpose, some agreement that becomes the standards from which conflicts that inevitably arise will be resolved. That’s where the birth of culture and governance comes in. But first love and trust. The more we weave these conversations back into the heart space, returning to “why”, the more harmonic resonance we will generate, the faster we will transition to hyper local sustainable communities empowered and connected by fintech and a dynamic, vibrant web network.