 JICWyllie says: I am not sure that humanity should 'own' the new commons, here proposed Perhaps management in trust for the benefit of all who live on this planet might be a more appropriate legal form. Also there is a free pdf version on the Capitalism 3.0 site under a Creative Commons licence. You can also buy a print version from Amazon. I would like to think of capitalism becoming "abandonware" and an obsolete WOS (World Operating System) as soon as possible, if we'll make an anology here with operating systems.  Capitalism 2.0 was defined early last century by Hilferding and this definition was fine-tuned by Lenin as "imperialism". Version 3.0 has already been here since 1990's, appearing (and being evolved) as a "global finance-capital oligarchy". Don't think the international corporate dominancy would allow refurbishing it and releasing a 3.0a version with minor refinements by donating some small advantages to the minors. Instead, they are willing to apply kind of "security patches" to it where they see necessary ... I agree we need a brand new 'operating system', constructive collaboration with all of nature, not competition and interest bearing debt. However, we need an upgrade path and the idea a global commons might be a first step after the capitalists lose their money in the coming crash (yes, blue screens on the trading floor) where only the small entrepreneurs will survive because they don't have a lot to lose. A good place to start is with new community currencies the value of which is backed by people i.e. community members, not governments. Watch this space. By the way, what is a GPF (I *should* know). GPF is "General Protection Failure". It used to appear very often during those Windows 3.1 days. After Win95, it changed its style and began showing that familiar, annoying message box: "This program performed an illegal action... blah ...blah".  I think this is a very interesting and noteworthy clip (like most of yours') and I generally agree with (most of) your comments above. Don't think the international corporate dominancy would allow refurbishing it and releasing a 3.0a version with minor refinements by donating some small advantages to the minors.Btw, I have to correct this sentence in my first comment above. Of course, it should be: "I don't think the international corporate dominancy would allow refurbishing it and release a 3.0a version with minor refinements by donating some small advantages to the masses." |
View the Top Clips from July 16, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||
