Is the blockchain the new Global City? - Part II

"Is the blockchain the new Global City"- Part II

This is the part II of the post. Here is part I

2nd Introduction

All my last 7 posts (in References below) were about the use of a math model based in the thought of Yona Friedman, that any observer from outside of a group to reach to the same conclusions. This model permits very easily to draw in a paper the interactions between people in a group(can include objects transactions too), and understand the "social situation", "influence" and "role" of any individual in a community or group.

I found one article of Yona Friedman on the internet recently that explains in drawings and very simply as he always does, the mathematical model for studying peoples interactions and organization of the network as well the power structure of the interaction - centralized/decentralized, hierarchical/equalitarian, paternalistic/non-paternalistic. Please read the third article of this pdf written by Yona Friedman - Group Networks

Yona Freidman is a living genius that was never noticed on his network analysis of group dynamics, integrating the interpersonal aspect and the environment, translatable in a math and topological map model that any 12-14 year old can understand.

Graphic of last post

6 - Can the blockchain bring back Direct Democracy and Consensus?

The most beautiful concept that Satoshi Nakamoto created the realizedtechnological Utopia a was the decentralization of money by bitcoin, besides the concept of anonymity and full access to everybody, working in a platform with no private property and managed by all stakeholders by consensus.

"decentralized society I see as necessary in order to attain a better balance between individual autonomy and psychological sense of community" - Dennis R. Fox (1985) American Psychologist - Psychology, Ideology, Utopia,and the Commons

The virus of decentralization was created initially by the concept of open-source software as common property, the first "conspiracy" of private citizens against the State and the concept of private software that make Code as Law for private profit and "back-doors" for stealing our privacy.
Consensus from the Latin word consentire (consent) have clear synonyms: agreement, harmony, concord, like-mindedness, concurrence, consent, common consent, accord, unison, unity, unanimity, oneness, solidarity, concert.
Consensus is not possible in centralized structures.
We can't solve social problems with centralized despotic authority, regulations and power clustering.
Consensus (consent) can only exist when:

a) - Everybody is involved in building solutions for the community;
b) - Everybody is informed with proper continuous feedback;
c) - Everybody knows the risks of taking that decision.

Consensus is a general agreement on a proposition to act and change the destiny of all the members of a community and face the risks involved.
Consensus can be "good" or "bad" because collective decisions involve risks that reflect in all the future of the community.
Any consensus in equalitarian groups can be right or wrong about the consequences of the collective choices and actions agreement.

When there is manipulation in the discussion of collective solutions, by self-interest people or groups that fight for Power then it can't be called consensus, but an imposition of an hierarchical structure.
Consensus exists only in equalitarian groups, where everybody has the same rights to express their will and importance by influence and be influenced by all the others.

If this actual economy and society state is the same on Steemit that "1% of users have 99% of Steem and
99% of users have 1% of Steem", numbers maybe are not correct and let's just take this as a form of speech.
If 1% is replacing the will and rights to influence of thousands to benefit 99% to themselves, it will destroy their golden egg chicken.
Consensus is a general agreement on a proposition to act and change the destiny of all the members of a community.

1% of people in Steemit make Code as Law for all the members of a community, instead of people generating consensus about the Law and get Justice.
(because for Justice means Equality in the relation of man2man in society)
Code is Law but people have the right to get consensus about the Law (code is made by the people) to get Justice with Equality in common consent.

Consensus is a general agreement on a proposition to act and change the destiny of all the members of a community and face the risks involved.

"Aronson's point about the possibility of increased independence within the context of an accepting group has been echoed by the anarchist Bookchin (1982), who argued that individual freedom is only possible within the interdependence of a "free community."

Such a view, in fact-that community and individuality must be merged in "communal individuality" (Ritter, 1980)--has traditionally been emphasized by the anarchists on the political left considered here, sometimes known as libertarian socialists or anarchocommunists (though not, it should be noted, by anarchocapitalists or "libertarians" on the political right)" - Dennis R. Fox (1985) American Psychologist - Psychology, Ideology, Utopia, and the Commons.

Some words of advice to deal with the group dynamics with other people on communities:

a)- Never follow a person, follow and support good individual and collective actions, because people or groups may change if they climb the pyramid of power.
b)- Never argue about the traits character of a person (because it is non-observable nobody can see this not even the person himself).
c)- We have to deal with a range of personalities or leadership going from autocratic (difficult to change) to democratic (open to change)
d)- When you want to point a negative action to someone you must always refer first some positive actions this person has to counterbalance.
e)- Stay away from groups with autocratic leadership because they want voluntary servitude from you.

Autocratic leaders make people obey to control everything and democratic leaders motivate people to act and learn with delegation to produce change and autonomy.
When we make people see their wrong actions they can change their actions and consequently change their attitudes, values, and behaviors.
EmPower > access to all - InPower > participatory decisions for all - InfoPower > continuous feedback to all
Power > the real definition of the word Power should be common consent in groups, where everybody has the same rights to exercise their free will and influence.

7 - Can Steemit and the blockchain be a total equalitarian Society?

Steemit is still the best social media blockchain platform to hangout as it has been lately shown by is active small communities trying to preserve an equalitarian influence for all Steemians, to be a decentralized, non-censored, open , transparent platform and refuge for reality journalists, bloggers , artists, creative media, content curators and voters.

-"a decentralized society of federated autonomous communities that would be better able to deal simultaneously with both global and individual problems at their source". Dennis R. Fox (1985) American Psychologist

Members of the traditional social media give corporations their data free form mining, they get no rewards, and only generate profit for the power group of the financial stakeholders.
The problem we have to deal here on steemit is possibly going to create a lot a fuzz, but my only intention is to clarify my philosophical views and bring value for the discussions in the future of Steemit. There are no solutions when you can't see and equate the problems.
First of all the initial philosophy of the blockchain envisaged by Nakamoto was decentralization, based on the fact that the blockchain was collective property.

The first problem/contradiction to deal with, is that Steemit is the first social media platform made possible by a beautiful dream of the creators, but it was only made possible with the money of investors that trusted their capital to grow in a very high "all-or-nothing" risky new venture (never forget that).
Steemit is the first social media trying to balance the difficult relation of people and money and create the first infrastructure to integrate the new attention economy (a real and unique innovation).
This hybrid based on a privatized owned platform, trying to create a structure where people could act in equalitarian ways is a very difficult problem to solve.


The second problem is what I call the equality in man2man relation on the platform and the inequality of possessions(objects) and fight for Power interfering, and how to contain the abuse of power of some.
Seemit can be an Equalitarian Platform in the relation of people to people but it will be always hierarchic in relation to possessions (sp, vests) that will always interfere, undermine and disturb the equalitarian relation in man2man.

The third problem is that the Utopia of Steemit was proposed by the creators to the community, which makes this utopia paternalistic, because the idea for the platform didn't come from the actual Steemians, besides that everybody needed a new type of social network to fight mainstream media and resist to censorship.

The fourth problem has to do with censorship-resistance that Steemit can maintain from the outside, but can it resist to possible inside censorship?.

A new society or environment was created on the blockchain by Steemit, but within a contradictory philosophical principle of the blockchain not being collective property and Power is determined by possessions and not by Reputation, that should or represent the individuals contributions for the platform.

YONA FRIEDMAN ANIMAL SOCIETY from BALKIS PRODUCTIONS on Vimeo.

So all the creators of the blockchain can facilitate the conditions for the infrastructure support of the clustering of small communities, an interconnected myriad of equalitarian groups, participating in collective consensus to contribute to the continuous re-writing of the Vision and Mission of Steemit.
(It's just my guess but the dream of the creators left this option opened for the community to self-organize participate and build).
The blockchain can bring back the small beautiful direct democracy of the "primitive city" because, it was the change of direct democracy into the democracy of the big city, where the elected chiefs (by excess of numbers of the "critical-group, steal the collective will on their own interests.

After naming some contradictory philosophical problems on Steemit I would like to clarify all the possible strategies for change that can be used or are already happening all mixed and in collusion:
a) - Cooperative strategy: based on consensus where everybody has the power to participate and have influence in a collective decision, the signs of an equalitarian society.
b) - Destructive strategy: control self-interested groups inducing chaos or manipulation by trying to control the collective resources pool or creating proposals that affect the flow of resources, vision, and mission of the network, signs of a dissolving society.
c) - Hierarchic or Oligarchic strategy : propositions for a change of the community by 1% of power owners of organizations inside and outside the community and characteristic of a hierarchic society.

So I think problems can be solved only with strategy a)- based on cooperation and collaboration in consensus, but maybe there are already working strategies b) and c) can leave to the dissolution of the community, that have a reason to resist and fight this kind of behaviors.
That's why the Big City utopia was killed and gave place to the actual utopia of immobilism and voluntary acceptance and servitude, by giving away the personal influence and right to choose to the politicians that built the actual totally inequalitarian society.

Decentralization is delegation to every individual of responsibility and right to autonomy acquired by learning in the processes of collective will as the door for freedom on planet Earth.
The blockchain can be the Big City infrastructure and the cradle for a myriad of small primitive direct democracy communities working in the best solutions for the sustainability of metropolis and Mother Earth.

8 - The counter-development of the big city : "Private city" and "urban village"

We have seen why the Utopia of the big city by turning hierarchic and terminating the equalitarian organization of the "primitive city, by excess of numbers in the "critical-group" and the need to elect a chief.

Equalitarian groups almost vanished from the Big City, but there are still existing "urban villages" that are still equalitarian within some ambiguities.

YONA FRIEDMAN ABOUT THE CITY from BALKIS PRODUCTIONS on Vimeo.

But in the "Big City" we can see too a "private city" we will explain.
Let's now see what happened in the development of the big city, the degradation of this utopia, and define the concept of "private city".
We can live in a city of 2 million people that we never met. But there are people we meet with a certain regularity and there is maybe 2000 or 3000 you can contact less frequently.
There is also some 20.000 people you meet on the streets or in public transportation,
that always make you feel some kind of constraint- seats taken by others, present aggressivity, smells and so on).
And there is the category of people you never meet personally " the technicians" that maintain the city and that you only notice if there is a strike for example.
As we see the "private city" is not necessarily territorial, at least in geographical proximity, and there are as many "private cities" as the number of citizens.

So maybe we can live in our individual "private city" as long as it do not overcome the critical-group numbers. So the "private city" coincides with a territory that we will call "urban village".
A" urban village" can be equalitarian as well as the" private city" as long as the "critical-group" numbers are not reached and bring hierarchy.
The "urban village" is somehow stable, because it can't grow in numbers (limited territory), it doesn't deteriorate easily, and have a bigger chance of survival in crisis, scarcity or wars.
They seem to be able to substitute Govern when it fails and organize for self-survival.

9 - The non-geographical critical-group

"Urban village" and "private city" are almost synonyms except in the question of the territory.
The "critical-group" is seen like a topological map (math structure) that expresses a social structure of influences and the numbers a group, that can still really function, interact and maintain a human capacity to function.
The "geographically" of the critical-group is a function of the communication means and devices the groups use, showing that non-geographical groups are totally possible (example: the blockchain).
So there is limitations in the number of people each community can have so that this conditions can be verified. The numbers of "critical group" keep the community equalitarian.

"In my personal language I call this limitation of planetary communication (limitation resulting from the numerical constraint implied by critical-group size) the "Babel Tower syndrome".
"The biblical image is perfect an organization (the builders of the tower) grows, and when growing, it menaces God. God doesn't react: He simply waits till the critical group size effect manifests itself. This happens inevitably, and the builders organization gets automatically blocked by the,'noise" in communication as the organization grew too large." Yona Friedman

10 - The society of "weak communication"and the new singularity of the Blockchain

"Thus, in the face of survival in a world which gets poor, humanity might invent the society with "weak communication," as an effect of the critical-group principle." - Yona Friedman - About critical-group size (1980)
The "private city" can recreate the realized utopia of direct democracy in the "primitive city" in the interior of the hierarchical big city.
It's the disintegration of big organizations that destroyed the primitive urban utopia.
This created a new map of certain equalitarian groups weakly connected between them.

"What many people find unappealing about decentralization is what they call the "mindless conformity" of the "small-town mentality." It is important to note that advocates of a decentralized society of smaller autonomous communities are usually not thinking in terms of small towns as they exist today. Such towns are hardly autonomous, and they provide few opportunities for the face-to-face intimacy and cultural variety possible in the kibbutz, in the commune, and occasionally in the old ethnic neighborhood" -(2) Dennis R. Fox (1985) American Psychologist - Psychology, Ideology, Utopia, and the Commons

The blockchain is opening ways to reduce the problems of "weak communication" in a constellation of small communities that respect the numbers of the critical-group.
This will allow inter-community cooperation that gives authorized consent of all the group's members to fulfill human needs and values of the collective.

GLOBAL COMMUNICATION from BALKIS PRODUCTIONS on Vimeo.

11 - Self-regulation and autoplanification in the "Engine Room"

Self-regulation of organizations is dictated by Laws of Nature and gives the species a secure survival sometimes with individual victims.
Autoplanification is based in knowing this Laws of Nature with a different goal of not standing for this laws bu study and use them in a way it doesn't generate innocent victims.
We can't do anything about this laws except adapt to these Laws of Nature and help to separate non-realizable utopias that give a bad name and under valuate the effects of realizable Utopias.

"While most people assume the commune is impossible, the neighborhood dead, and the alienating existence of mass society here to stay, anarchists reasonably suggest as a long-range goal an "organized anarchy"-a decentralized society of federated autonomous communities that would be better able to deal simultaneously with both global and individual problems at their source.
Refusing to consider anarchist perspectives and failing to question our own basic assumptions may ultimately lead to tragedies that could otherwise be avoided. " (2)"Psychology, Ideology, Utopia, and the Commons" - Dennis R. Fox (1985) American Psychologist

12- Reflections about the future made by the visionay Yona Friedman made in 1975-80

"We are at present living in a world which is going to get poorer,as compared to the image earlier decades had of the future. Resources are diminishing faster than science and political organizations could invent alternative methods to replace them or use them differently. Thus the industrialized world gets poor because its development depends upon the abundance of such resources,and the non-industrialized world impoverishes even more rapidly, as it was counting on industrialization to escape from poverty, thus losing the routine (non-industrial) which ensured its survival in the past." - Yona Friedman

"Getting poor has its specific speed, and government are helpless in the face of phenomena accompanying it(unemployment, inflation,etc.). As a result, the man in the street feels abandoned by the institutions he relied on. As he is fundamentally interested in his own survival, starts to invent particular solutions to assure it; as he has no diffusing organization at his disposal, his particular inventions are not are not generally known: they are known generally in his particular community alone, in full accordance with the critical group principle." - Yona Friedman

13 - Where is Hive account@kernl

Thanks, Hive account@krnel for carefully reading my posts and help to correct on my bad typing and English gaps, as well as, clarifying holes in my thoughts -I miss you in this one :( or maybe you're reading my post. :). Above all for the example of hard work to change the community for the better. I hope you are resting in a beautiful landscape with a nice cocktail in the sunset, to get new strength to go back to the fight in the frontline risking all your reputation and hardworking. And the Reputation of being a stand up for the community and for the real meaningful non-mainstream media reality content produced to add a real value of the Steemit community.

Please Read, Contribute, Criticize, Suggest and Comment

Footnote: (*) I choose the term Equalitarian for a vision that accepts or promotes the view of equalitarianism , instead of Egalitarian a vision who accepts or promotes social equality and equal rights for all people because that is not yet possible in the material hierarchic structure of our world of objects and assets.

My other posts on Steemit about the blockchain and Realizable Utopias

Is the blockchain the new Global City? - Part I
The Rise of a Non-Competitive Society and the Importance of "Importance"
Can Steemit attention-economy be a "non-competitive" society?
Can Steemit be a Gandhi Phenomena?
Do Blockchain communities have a "Critical-Group" ?
Is the blockchain a "Hierarchical" or an "Equalitarian" Community?
Is the blockchain a Realizable Social Utopia?
An Ode to the blockchain - the Dialectic of Liberation
Steemit Value : Intangible Asset vs Tangible Asset Analysis
Steemit: Altruism and Financial Scarcity and the rise of Advertising
Steemit : The Shrinking of the Money Pie and the Rise of Human Pie

My Other posts on Steemit that discuss the problem of Power

Autonomy, Responsibility and Freedom - Interview Part 1
Autonomy, Responsibility and Freedom - Interview Part 2

B/W Pictures Source:

All black and white hand writing pictures included in the slides, are originally copied from the book - "Utopias Realizáveis" - (Realizable Utopias) by Yona Friedman , Sociocultur, Lisbon, 1977 (in Portuguese)

References:

Yona Friedman web site with lots of material
Yona Friedman on Vimeo
Yona Friedman - wikipedia : Architect, urban planner, designer but also a sociology student, physics and science communications, Yona Friedman (Budapest, 1923) is back at the center of international architectural culture after having long been dismissed as Utopian. Member of the Hungarian anti-Nazi resistance, Friedman spent a few years in Haifa, Israel, where he sketched the first of his many theories, namely the Mobile Manifesto architecture in which special construction systems allow the inhabitant to determine for itself the shape, style etc. his apartment and to change it when they want it. website: Yona Friedman
Interview with Yona Friedman: "Imagine, Having Improvised Volumes "Floating" In Space, Like Balloons"
Yona Friedman 1000+ photos - Pinterest
One Video among hundreds : Yona Friedman: You are obliged to stay Mainstream
Attention economy - Wikipedia

Books and articles of Yona Friedman

Read the third article of this pdf written by Yona Friedman - Group Networks
Yona Friedman - Utopies réalisables (1975)
"Utopias Realizáveis" - (Realizable Utopias )by Yona Friedman , Sociocultur, Lisbon, 1977 (in Portuguese)
Yona Friedman - About critical-group size (1980)
Yona Friedman - Comment vivre entre les autres sans être esclave et sans être chef, J.J. Pauvert, Paris, 1974

Other Books and Weblinks Dennis R. Fox (1985) American Psychologist - Psychology, Ideology, Utopia, and the Commons
The Politics of Utopia: A Study in Theory and Practice By Barbara Goodwin, Keith Taylor
(1) Memetic Lexicon. Glenn Grant
(2)"Psychology, Ideology, Utopia, and the Commons" - Dennis R. Fox (1985) American Psychologist