Network States - Is this where we're headed?
Network States - Is this where we're headed?
Observing what is currently happening in the US has led me down the Network State rabbit hole. The linked video is a great place to start if you're not already aware of these ideas.
Unfortunately these concepts seem to be cosied up to modern fascism/monarchism, but I do wonder if this is genuinely the likeliest alternative to modern day capitalism. Yanis Varoufakis' idea of technofeudalism seems like another way of viewing this.
Could greener, more altruistic network states co-exist with money and power hungry billionaire-led communities? Or would their greed and ambition be detrimental to the efforts of those trying to save the natural earth?
Could greener, more altruistic network states co-exist with money and power hungry billionaire-led communities?
Not peacefully, that's for sure. I think that touches on a problem humans have always had. Imagine 10 separate societies existed. If only one was a warmonger, while the other nine sought peace, then all ten need to behave like that one asshole or they'll be conquered eventually.
That's why I don't see how peaceful, green societies could live alongside rapicious capitalist monarchies. Actually I'm pretty sure that played out a couple times already, and that's why things are the way they are.
What kind of political/state environment would these network states exist within, if any? That could allow for different types of relations between network states, but coexistence between states with such different goals seems difficult.
I know this is a popular view right now, but it isn't actually how such things work.
In your theoretical 9 peaceful vs. 1 war-liking group, the latter needs to be very careful not to pose too much of a threat to avoid the others banding together. In addition once you force others to invest in an arms race the side focussing on defence is the one that gets away more cheaply resources wise and thus making attacking a losing proposition in the long run.
Thus as a result the one war-liking group either gets wiped out or resigns itself to a more parasite like state where it cycles through raiding the 9 others but keeps it at a level where all the others at an individual level are not feeling sufficiently threatend to invest in real defense or band together with the others.
In addition the historical record actually shows that neither is a strategy that is really successful, and what rather happens is that the successful war-liking groups try to install themselves as the leaders of an peaceful group and then expand mostly through extortion and threat of violence but not actual attacks.
Very interesting discussion, thanks both!
Yanis Varoufakis’ idea of technofeudalism seems like another way of viewing this.
Not really. Varoufakis idea is more of a novel way of framing what already exists right now, but I think he is doing to some extend the classic mistake of thinking capitalism is/was about competition, when that was always at most an inconvenience on the way to reach a monopoly.
Network states are basically the doomer vision for billionaires (which describes Peter Thiel quite well). They might try to sell it as the great vision of trading/charter cities like Venice during the Renaissance, but in reality they are fully aware that this is just a scaled up and more realistic version of the bunker with guns and cans.
Thank you for the explanation, I need to look at the ideas more closely and understand the differences between them.
I do find it strange that these network states don't explain how classic issues like climate change or equality would come into play. In fact, it's funny that the Network State book doesn't acknowledge what happens to differently abled or disadvantaged individuals. I guess the easy answer is that they simply don't care!