Decentralized production technology

A must read for the new year, Kevin Carson has pre-published a new draft chapter of his book in progress.

Theme: decentralized production technology.

Of course, we at P2P Foundation would use the term distributed, rather than decentralized, which from our point of view, refers better to different power centers, rather than to true bottom up processes. Decentralization is a response from the top, to challenges from below, and creates a heterarchy or balance of power, based on negotation and representation, while distribution is the process which starts upwards from free agents.

Here’s the definition of distributed processes by Enzio Manzini:

“Distributed systems = the existence of an horizontal system architecture where complex activities are accomplished in parallel by an high number of connected elements

And this quote is from our own manuscript:

“Alexander Galloway in his book Protocol makes an important and clear distinction between centralized networks (with one central hub where everything must pass and be authorized, as in the old telephone switching systems), decentralized systems, with more than one center, but these subcenters still being authorative (such as the airport system in the U.S. centered around hubs where planes must pass through), from distributed systems, where hubs may exist, but are not obligatory (such as the internet). In distributed networks, participants may freely link with each other, they are fully autonomous agents. Hence the importance to clearly distinguish between our usage of the concepts ‘decentralized’ vs. ‘distributed’. Peer to peer is specifically the relational dynamic that arises in distributed networks.”

3 Comments Decentralized production technology

  1. AvatarKevin Carson

    Thanks a lot for the link, Michel.

    I think “decentralized” is a better choice for my particular purposes, since it refers to a market of small scale production for local markets, and entails physical/geographical decentralism. “Distributed,” as I understand it, refers to the network organization of subtasks in a larger process. Decentralized production, on the other hand, refers to the local focus of the process itself.

    BTW, I think the link to the draft chapter is down, as I write this. I don’t know if it’s a problem with Lycos, or what. If Lycos’ hosting services keep dicking me around, I’ll probably post the chapter directly on my blog.

  2. AvatarMichel Bauwens

    Might be an issue of choice of semantics, I’m not sure yet.

    Some important aspects for me are this:

    1) are the hubs voluntarily chosen or coercively imposed: this is the key distinguishing decentralized from distributed networks; or another formulation is: are the agents truly free in their relations and actions

    2)what is the direction of the process. Is it a breaking up of a hierarchical network, i.e. decentralization (top-down direction); or, does it start from collaborating free agents, bottom up direction

    Now a market, to the degree to which it consists of hierarchically structured subunits (companies), would be decentralized rather than distributed, from the point of view of individual producers, since the hubs (companies) are coercive. But if you take the agent to be the company itself, it could be considered a distributed network, from the point of view of the company as independent agent.

    So the perspective matters.

  3. AvatarKevin Carson

    I also think it’s an apples and oranges thing to some extent: “decentralization” refers mainly to the physical relationship between small-scale producers and local markets, whereas “distribution” refers to the assignment of tasks within a process. So both could be taking place at the same time.

    Your observation on the coerciveness (or not) of the hubs is an important one. If the hubs are coercively imposed, a distributed system can exist within a hierarchical corporate framework. Consider, e.g., Tom Peters’ discussion of “opening up” the corporation to market forces, and “contracting out everything.” If the legal supports to corporate privilege are left intact, the result is what Naomi Klein described: all the physical stages of the production process are contracted out to a distributed production network, but all in a corporate framework in which the corporation retains control of financing, “intellectual property” [sic], branding, and so forth. Peer production (like “lean production,” self-directed teams, and many other new economy concepts) is contested terrain; whether it serves to liberate or enslave depends on whose framework it’s incorporated into.

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.