Malone Reading

Malone's views on the movement from decentralization, to centralization, and back are very interesting. He suggests that the decreasing cost of communications is the common thread. While I agree with the possibility, I think it is too simplistic. He asks why there was no change for thousands of years, and then in 200 years radical changes occurred. This same argument could be applied to the industrial revolution. Why did we struggle for so long and then within a short period move to machines and mass production? Malone touches on the conquering and assimilation of many societies, which has been a recurring theme in the history of man. But why did the conquered not simply run off and reform their bands? Because they had left their hunting and gathering and tied themselves to the land. Their choices were to assimilate or abandon their livelihoods. Those in power knew this, and were able to use their military power to increase the boundaries of their kingdoms. What choice would we make if confronted with this decision?

So why should this movement towards centralization be tied to communication costs? People naturally congregated together in areas conducive to the lifestyle they chose. Also, as Malone mentioned, people developed specializations that were desired by others. It was easier for groups to live together and share their knowledge and abilities with each other. Eventually, this led to the realizations that larger groups were safer and better able to fight off aggressive neighbors. Eventually, leaders will emerge when large groups form, and power is willingly surrendered to the one who is willing to take all the responsibility and stress. As we all know, power can corrupt, and in many cases those who were in charge became greedy and felt that they had the right to take more than they deserved because they were the hard working protectors of the group. With the pattern established, it became easy for those in power to find those of like mind to join them and to help them become dictators and rulers.

That being said, I can see how falling communication costs gave people the opportunity to educate themselves and to encourage others to do the same. As awareness of abuses of power became more apparent, some people would have communicated this information to others and encouraged revolt. Clearly that has happened successfully in our history, and could be attributed to a greater ease of mass communication. As I sad in the beginning, I believe that lower communication cost played a part, but I don't believe that it is the sole factor.