Yes, an holistic approach is needed and I like circles of sustainability in that regard (see also engaged theory). I avoid the term ‘Capitalism’ in communication. The word is too overloaded and controversial, and leads to endless, fruitless discussion whether it works or not. I use hypercapitalism (capitalism-run-amok), which is what we have.
Also let’s avoid blockchain discussions, and stick to fedi-tech related discussion. Our scope is already sooo large.
Agreed on full decentralisation. I’d like to give a twist to ‘governance’ in that people with federated technology should be more able to “govern themselves”. In the milk-producing example small farmers might be able to more easily organize together, to be stronger, and offer their produce more directly to market, cutting parts of the supply line that are overly extractive (e.g. supermarkets).
It is nice that you brought up Aral Balkan. As you know, together with Laura Kalbag he started the Small Technology Foundation, and SmallTech might be the ideal USP to make Fediverse stand out to hypercapitalist alternatives (though I think Aral maybe finds that federated servers are not ‘small’ enough… and there’s indeed the risk of re-centralization in them).
This is an entire field to further explore. The story of interoperability is not good, atm. I touched on the subject in From silo-first to task-oriented federated app design.
I was first pointed to Valueflows by @strypey on Loomio. It is wonderful that it finds real-world implementation. What #software:bonfire is doing in terms of venturing into different domains is great as well, and I’d invite the @bonfire team to participate in the #fediversity:fediverse-futures discussion and help broaden this community and its dreams of what is possible.
Thanks for the links, @bhaugen!