Re: [ox-en] Re: What is the mission?
- From: "Samuel Rose" <samuel.rose gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:49:32 -0400
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Stephen,
thanks for thoughtful replies, mine follow inline:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz hbv.org>wrote:
On 2008-08-14 06:37, Samuel Rose wrote:
What you describe very clearly has a scientific term: fetishism. I
cannot explain and illustrate this better than you did. Capitalist
markets seems to be natural law, and you can not fight against the
law of falling bodies, right?
Sam writes: I think "fetishism" is inaccurate. "Fetishism" is
generally defined as a form of "disorder", or "pathology", a problem
(in humans) that "deviates" from the "norm" (for humans).
I don't mean individual pathology, fetishism is used here in a social
sense. It means, that the "norm" to behave (aka social relations) is
determined by a movement of things (the commodities in production and
circulation). Thus humans in capitalism follows rules of things like a
"fetish" -- and that _is_ the "norm" where nobody can deviate from
(including me and you).
It is so normal that has proven to be in the "nature" of humans, and
therefore "human nature".
Stephen writes: Yes, it seems to be, but it is only the so called "second
nature". It
seem to be so "natural", that scientists uncritically accept the
appearing surface and justify it as _the_ (first) "nature".
Sam writes: I am sorry, I will have to disagree with you here. First I'll
explain that my theoretical foundation for my argument that it is "human
nature" comes from the work of the late Dr Clare W Graves, who researched on
actual people for more than 15 years.
It doesn't just "seem to be" that some people have it within their nature to
desire to control, to gain material wealth, and to relate socially under a
"survival of the fittest" ideology. It also doesn't just "seem to be" that
these people are able to convince many others to go along with their desire
to control and amass wealth, *by* appealing to their desire to also control
and amass wealth. It is *is* so.
This doesn't mean that this is the only "potential" for these people. But,
it does mean that this is the way that they are solving their problems of
existence, and it means that on a very deep, fundamental level, that many of
them truly believe that this is the best way, that they have answered their
problems of existence, that the problem they are looking at is one of
control and conquering. It is not within the "nature" of all of the people
who walk this earth to solve problems this way, but it is in the nature of a
significant amount, and in the nature of people who command and control
tremendous swaths of wealth and resources of many types.
Don't tell illusions, be honest. But the point is: You can not
convince anybody simply by argueing. You have to prove your thesis
practically. Like Linus Torvalds did. Read the historical
Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate.
The point that I was trying to make was that you can't even convince
people with example. You actually have to convince people with
examples that *work with* their current way of viewing the world.
Yes.
Linus Torvalds and the millions of people working on F/LOSS software
did this. They found a way to weave together the existing capitalist
systems with peer production systems.
Nope. Because it can not be woven together. In order to see this, you
have to apply critical research and not just accepting how the people
are.
I can totally accept that you have found fundamental flaws in a system that
tries to "weave together" peer production and capitalist systems. I will
accept that you have found that this type of system would not work, or would
degrade or collapse over time, without even reading or knowing what the
arguments are. I will accept it, because I understand that capitalism itself
is not indefinitely sustainable. So, anything that is "woven" to it is
doomed to collapse under it's own demand for growth.
What I am talking about here is not trying to extend capitalism, but instead
build a bridge out of it. You may stand by and watch yourself and others go
down with the sinking ship, or you may do something about it, and I hope
that critical research will also show you that.
And this is one mission of Oekonux: Not just accepting what seems
to be obvious, but analyze it critically. I don't need any doubling of
the appearing surface.
Sam: Well, perhaps I am polluting the Oekonux list with my viewpoint. Rest
assured that my assertion that what you see around you is "human nature",
and not a "fetish" is based on decades of critical analysis, theories, and
hypotheses that have been tested and proven over and over again.
In this case, "Human nature" as I define it, describes the deep, fundamental
assumptions upon which people base their ways of solving their basic
problems of existence (or "existential problems"). It is a bio-psycho-social
system that is the result of internal biology, neuroanatomy,
neuro-endochrineology, and it's complex-adaptive connection to an external
world that is both ordered and chaotic, nourishing and destructive at the
same time. Again, I try to outline this here:
http://www.communitywiki.org/en/LiteracyOfHumanNature
If there is critical analysis present here, then you understand that there
is a reason why people have come to solve their problems of existence in the
way that they do now, and that those reasons why can be understood through
the collected knowledge that comes from Antrhopology, Archaeology,
Complexity theory, comparative neuroanatomy, systems theory, primatelology,
and much more.
I think the mistake that I made was misunderstanding or presuming what the
"mission" of Oekonux is. I assumed that there is interest here in helping to
bring about change, to avert looming global human catastrophy (which is what
my fundamental mission is).
This is what I am talking
about. They found a way to build a bridge out of purely capitalist
systems that people can cross as far as they like (they are not
required to totally throw off capitalistic paradigms to participate).
Nobody is required to throw off any paradigm s/he had to do free
software, that is a good thing. But this does not mean, that free
software is a commodity, or gets exchanged, or has any economic value.
Free software is not a thing of value. This can be found out
analytically, but again it is not required to do free software.
Sam: Ok. But what good does this do someone who must pay for or somehow
produce their own sustenance in this world? What paradigm should they adopt,
and how will they "adopt" it?
They did this out of necessity.
Yes.
(...)
So, why not instead *present* the change from the beginning in a
way that looks and feels like it conforms to their "way" but in
fact *helps them accept a transitional change* by helping to
create the conditions for change?
I feel that this is playing with people. You want to outsmart
people. I can't do this, it is not honest, it doesn't take people
seroius.
Sam writes: You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not
suggesting playing with people, and have never done so myself. I am
suggesting building a real alternative that works within their
systems, that can be "seen" as valid at least to some degree from
*their* worldview, as was done by F/LOSS communities.
You don't need to do anything for "them". Don't treat "them" as objects.
I feel this is playing with people. Sorry to say so again.
Sam: Hmmm... I can see that no matter how I describe this, you'll decide to
color what I am saying as "treating people as objects." Whatever. My
actions, work, etc speak for themselves, and will prove you wrong. Think
what you will about me. I've explained what I am talking about here quite
clearly: creating conditions for change which people either will or will not
voluntarily take/choose. I have also explained why I am interested in doing
this. That's about all I've got for you. If you think I am dishonest, I
think you are ignorant, of narrow vision, and closed-minded. It feels nice
to have people characterize you like this, eh?
I see it
as my responsibility to go beyond just offering logical explanations,
which indeed are needed to give people "insight" into their
condition, and also offer "solutions". And, I see it as my
responsibility to make those solutions work for as many people as
possible, whether they may see themselves as "anarchist", "marxist",
or "capitalist" (or any other "-ist").
Your responsibility is not for other people, it is only for you to think
about what are saying - here and anywhere. I don't mean this offensive.
Sam: My responsibility is exactly what I say it is for. If you don't mean
the above to be offensive, you've done a great job of offending me anyway.
Perhaps there is someone else here who should really think about what they
are saying?
Ciao,
Stefan
--
Start here: www.meretz.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
--
<http://twitter.com/SamRose>
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de