2021-02-25 ------------------------------------------------------------------ This is a series of posts. You may wish to read the other ones first: 1. "Dimensions of Government" 2. "Symmetries of Responsibility" 3. "Stacking of Thresholds" I was talking about how it could be useful to view organizational structures along three axis': Anarchy vs Authoritarianism, Capitalism vs Socialism and Large vs Small. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fig. Three Axis' An --- Au Ca --- So La --- Sma ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fig. Three Dimensional Diagram | \ La - - - - - An | . \ . \ \ | . \ _ _ _ _ _ Au | . . . . \ Sma . . . . | - - . - - . \ . \ . \ _ _ _ _ _ - So --- Ca - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Corners of the diagram: 0 - 0 - 0 Small Anarchic Socialist 0 - 0 - 1 Small Anarchic Capitalist 0 - 1 - 0 Small Authoritarian Socialist 0 - 1 - 1 Small Authoritarian Capitalist 1 - 0 - 0 Large Anarchic Socialist 1 - 0 - 1 Large Anarchic Capitalist 1 - 1 - 0 Large Authoritarian Socialist 1 - 1 - 1 Large Authoritarian Capitalist ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition to this, I think I may need some way of talking about unit's relation to other units. Every unit (I assume) will have an internal value and an external value. I don't know how this is going to work out, so let's try an example. There's a family living in the States. The family is rather old fashioned and has the father as the head of the family. Let's say they are some type of conservative christians. So, if we take the family as a unit, it is a small, authoritarian, socialist structure. Socialist because they share the resources (comparatively) freely among themselves. Let's give it coordinates in the diagram: 0.2 - 0.9 - 0.1 The family is part of a larger structure, the congregation. I mean the people who are in this local church, not the church itself. This is a medium sized, rather anarchic structure. It is more socialist than capitalist for sure, but more capitalist than the family is. Coordinates: 0.5 - 0.3 - 0.3 NOTE: It occurs to me that it could make sense to think of the individual (instead of the family) being part of the larger structure. Meaning that we may not need internal and external values for "family" but instead the father of the family is part of the family and the congregation. It seems to me that when you actually are part of two structures, they compete for your attention and loyalty, much in the way the father would have to choose if he is speaking to his family or the congregation while they are both present. Let's see where this goes. So, the congregation is lead by this large, authoritarian, mostly capitalist structure: the church. Capitalist because there is a transaction of services and resources, instead of free flow. Let's imagine it like the Catholic Church, a real international megastructure. Coordinates: 1.0 - 0.9 - 0.8 Inside the church there can be different units. Let's say there is a committee that discusses what sort of charity work the church will sponsor. This committee would be rather small, more anarchic than authoritarian and socialist. Coordinates 0.2 - 0.3 - 0.1 (We expect that these people are paid for being part of the church structure, and not because of sitting on this committee, so within the function of the committee, there is no structured transaction of resources or services). NOTE: I would point out that if it turned out that this committee in fact is capitalist while working on the function of deciding about the use of church resources, this would actually be called corruption. In other words, if a board member bought another member's support for their own opinion as to where they should invest the churches money. Have to think about this more. Is corruption a failure to work along the coordinates that you are supposed to belong to? What other examples are there? NOTE: It seems that in order to decide something we need socialist structure, but in order to implement we need capitalist structure. But what about authoritarian socialist committee? What would that look like? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fig. Anarchic Socialist Discussion o o o o1 <-> o2 o o2 <-> o7 o o7 <-> o1 o o o ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fig. Authoritarion Socialist Discussion o o o o c o o o C > c1 o o o c1 > o1 o1 > c1 o c o c1 > o2 C o2 > c1 o o o ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fig. Authoritarion Capitalist Exchange C C > c1 c c c c c1 > o1 c1 > o2 ooo ooo ooo ooo c1 > o3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fig. Anarchic Capitalist Exchange o o o o1 <-> o2 o o1 <-> o3 o o o o2 <-> o3 o o o o o o ------------------------------------------------------------------ The anarchic socialist have a domain where information (or other resources) moves freely between all participants who are present. Authoritarian socialist discussion is more like a classic school class. There is an authority that facilitates or restricts the sharing of the information. There are overlapping domains, for example, the teachers collect to discuss with head teacher, then they descend to their own classes and bring the information from the higher domain. Authoritarian capitalist structure exchanges information to other resources or other information. This tends to create pyramidic structure. Anarchic capitalist exchange is a structureless collection of nodes exchanging information. I get the feeling that there is no way to run the society without having all of these structures present to some degree. I think that it won't be too hard to find out what structure is most beneficial when. It might be harder to find out for whom is it beneficial.