Re: [ox-en] Re: herrschaft
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:24:31 +0100
Hi StefanMz, list!
I just wanted to record my general agreement with what StefanMz said
below. Some small comments.
2 months (80 days) ago Stefan Meretz wrote:
On Tuesday 07 October 2003 22:59, Graham Seaman wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Stefan Merten wrote:
I see this different. In particular in the questions around OHA
(OrganisationHerrschaftAnarchismus = OrganizationDominationAnarchism)
we made a lot of progress.
This is one of the discussions I didn't follow at all on the German
list, and I would guess most people on the english list don't know
anything about it either. Would it be possible for someone to summarize
the main concerns for the English list? (maybe someone relatively
neutral in the current discussion would be best if such a thing is
possible ;-) (Casimir? Thomas?)
Like StefanMn and ThomasBe I am not neutral. I only can sketch opposites
in the debate. However, this is a field full of mines, therefore, forgive
me if I miss a point.
Yes, there are a lot of mines. My wish is to remove the mines as far
as possible.
Here is my perception:
The key question is: How can a free society be self/organized, if there is
no invisible hand at all (no exchange, no money, no market, no state)?
I agree in general but I'd put it a bit differently: How *does* a Free
Society organize itself.
This question can not be answered by just following any holy true theory.
Just for the record: I never declared anything holy. Actually a "holy
theory" does not exist because that is a plain ideology.
Nobody and no theory give any answer, because either it is not in the
scope at all or it is shifted to a far later time ("communism" what
ever).
This is something I don't understand. If this is true in general we
can stop creating theories completely. Or where is the germ form
theory different?
However, from free software we learn, that it is a question that
is obviously there today, not in a crystalline sense, but in practice
with all contradiction of this practice e.g. the maintainer model, the
self-organizational principles emerged in free software, the
selfunfolding/selbstentfaltung etc.
Therefore, the ODA-debate is threefold (with decreasing consensus):
- interpreting free software: what _do_ we see there (e.g. the germform
thesis is located here...)
- sketching free society: can free software principles be applied to whole
society - strongly dependent what these principles are (meaning: what we
think, we see there)
- thinking human beings: the two points above are heavyly penetrated with
the different views on humans - having a lot of sources: personal
experiences in groups, insights in different psychological theories etc.
Btw: In this sense the ox-topic is much, much broader than attac ever can
be, because - in my view - we face "the whole question".
This for me is "trans-left", because we move beyond the given
[bourgois|any-term-you-like|void] framework. This includes our thinking.
In some field we can observe and do this today, in other fields not.
I agree very much with these paragraphs.
From an immanent perspective no one can say, "we made progress" there.
Progress is only thinkable in terms our making opposites clearer, not in
the sense finding a (or "the") solution, because there is no standpoint
from which progress can be identified. What in StefanMns view is
progress, is in my view sometimes regress - and I guess, the same occurs
reversed too.
What I meant by making progress was that at least I learned a lot
about that field - in all three aspects you named above. From personal
contacts I know others also learned from these debates so it is not
completely misguided to talk of a "we" here.
All others differences in detail can be deduced from the sketch above.
"Fragend gehen wir voran" (preguntando caminamos)
Questioning we move forward. Yes, please :-) .
BTW: I do not want to repeat the debate from the German list here. To
me this makes not much sense - though it would be interesting to see
what happens if the German culture is factored out of this debate
;-) . I'll try to approach this topic here on a far more practical
basis. My mail about rules I posted some time ago here may illustrate
what I mean. I'll come back to that - hopefully soon.
Mit Freien Grüßen
Stefan
_________________________________________
Unread: 215 [ox], 289 [ox-en], 291 [chox]
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/