<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hiya,<br>
<br>
So long as there are power laws, there will be macro-celebrities.<br>
<img src="cid:part1.02090307.00010709@downes.ca" alt=""><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.downes.ca/images/network_tree.jpg">http://www.downes.ca/images/network_tree.jpg</a><br>
<br>
Should the network reshape into a mesh, we will see a decline of
macrocelebrities.<br>
<img src="cid:part2.08070708.00060404@downes.ca" alt=""><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.downes.ca/images/network_star.jpg">http://www.downes.ca/images/network_star.jpg</a><br>
<br>
Traditional publishers and their ilk are working very hard to preserve
the centralized tree-shaped network, because this is how they make
their money. It comes, for the rest of us, at the cost of our voice.
Others of us are working to evolve beyond centralized content
management. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.downes.ca/presentation/225">http://www.downes.ca/presentation/225</a><br>
<br>
-- Stephen<br>
<br>
Dean, Jodi wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:A9CB20B2E922894AB91C979CE39066F5F5E14C0673@EXMAIL.hws.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It seems to me that thinking about the ways that neoliberalization and financialization have changed capitalism since Marx's initial analysis is important.
Didn't Kevin Kelly talk about the winner take all society? or the change in market practices such that there are a very few big winners and a large number of
losers (80/20 rule?)? I think I recall as well sociological analyses (Sassen?) exploring the way that former divisions between occupations/professions are now
divisions within them--so, there are high-powered lawyers and then lawyers who are basically piece-workers as well as those who are just mini-cogs in law
factories. The same holds in academia--tenured full professors at one end, adjuncts struggling to teach 6-7 courses in order to make a living at the other end.
I think it is useful to think today in terms of the production of debt--the US economy doesn't produce much stuff anymore (we import it); but we do produce
(sell/export/commodify) debt. Stuff (that we get from elsewhere) is the vehicle/raw material for the initial production of debts that can then be combined,
bundled, tranched, valued, sold, insured. Some companies that get involved in this fail. Some are too big to fail. Some individuals successfully produce a
great deal of debt (Michael Jackson), some produce smaller amounts, although this may still incase them in servitude.
Does it make sense today to speak of right-wing or bourgeois consciousness? What about ideology and ideological practices in which we all persist (I know, but
nevertheles...ala Zizek rather than the older notion that implies a division between ideology and science or true and false consciousness)?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
---
Stephen Downes ~ Researcher ~ National Research Council Canada
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.downes.ca">http://www.downes.ca</a> ~ <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stephen@downes.ca">stephen@downes.ca</a> ** Free Learning
</pre>
</body>
</html>