Comments on: Gerard Fairtlough’s triararchical typology of corporate power systems https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/gerard-fairtloughs-triararchical-typology-of-corporate-power-systems/2010/01/21 Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:42:39 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.5.15 By: Michel Bauwens https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/gerard-fairtloughs-triararchical-typology-of-corporate-power-systems/2010/01/21/comment-page-1#comment-421305 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:42:39 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=6924#comment-421305 It’s likely that the author, who came from a corporate background, uses ‘anarchy’ in the usual common and ‘pejorative’ parlance?

Michel

]]> By: david ronfeldt https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/gerard-fairtloughs-triararchical-typology-of-corporate-power-systems/2010/01/21/comment-page-1#comment-421293 Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:12:33 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=6924#comment-421293 apropos the last two sentences: hmmm. is that a fair distinction the author makes between responsible autonomy and anarchy? wouldn’t many anarchists claim to believe in responsible autonomy? and aren’t there varieties of anarchism that do hold deciders accountable? besides, how can responsible autonomy be said to have no inherent structure if it is suppposed to hold decision-makers accountable?

maybe the answers reside in the long version aout triarchy. but as i recall from an earlier glimmse at it, my questions persist. anybody got answers?

]]>