Message 01367 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01340 Message: 9/22 L7 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] looking deeper into fields of practice



Thank you for going into this discussion, which I consider most fruitful!

Franz Schaefer schreibt / Franz Schaefer wrote:

a) improving the tools of cooperation:

yes. i was thinking about giving them an "opentheory" site for the
preperation of texts..etc.. the problem is: most people there are not
technically inclined.. so in some cases it was hard enough to teach them
how
to use email efficiently..

Of course. But that is required. Collective theoretical work requires
tools which are as easy to use as email or a simple text processor. I have
personal history as an amateur software developer and developer supporter
in the 1980s Macintosh world, and I found out that the easier the work of
the user, the more work of the developer is required.
It gives me a lot of satisfaction that the fights of the time were
successfully won (in principle). That the computer is increasingly
becoming a tool for "the rest of us". We tend to take this for granted.
There was a lot of work necessary and a lot of arguments to go through.


i guess this is the main reason why the possibilties first had an impact
in
the development of software: because the people who develop software have
the best skills to use of the net. (and where there was a lack of tools in
some earea they simply created them.. ) this is changing thought: on the
one
hand easier and better tools on the other hand people are learning to use
them. the imporant question is how to give motivation to the people to
learn
to use the tools. it is a chicken and egg type problem: as long as the
tools
are not used the tools are not imporant for them and there is no
motivation
to learn them...

This is the classical problem of technical and social innovation. I was
very impressed after I had a meeting with Douglas Engelbart at Stanford,
who at the time answered that if you can create a learning community of
technical and non-technical people, this community will find the best and
convincing answers for the rest of the world. It is not necessary to start
with all people, if you can show good results with a minority then the
rest of the world will follow - if you found a good solution. This was
most likely when finally I understood that politics is often an excuse for
doing nothing. In our academical cycles in Europe, we spent hours and
hours, weeks and months and years on explaining why things are impossible
to change until a substantial number of people becomes completely hopeless
and starts to do resistance. In America, I found a lot of groups starting
to do innovations in various fields, and showing and sharing their results
and their findings. Everybody would be curious and open and look what they
might have achieved. This is a very interesting difference in mindset.
You grab what I mean? There is no excuse not to start trying.


b) improving the base of cooperation: How do we get people to
participate
in free projects? I mean this is not a question of "motivating", as it
might sound, but rather "enabling" and "inspiring".

 where i think that the question of "motivating" is where the analogy
between the work of free software production and that of volunteer
politics
is most interesting. the problem of enabling is a bit different. on the
free
software side all they need is a computer, a linux CD and a net
connection and eventually someone who gives a brief introduction..
the net connection could do a lot for the political field as well, but
obviously it is not enough.... 

Of course not. But the impact of the net on education is an amazing one.
We have not yet realized how far we can spread knowledge and abilities.
Again we are now discussing in a completely different framework to
innovate the complete process of education by focusing on local library -
like institutions which allow people to access and use knowledge -
resources from everywhere. 
And when it comes to physical production, you are right, we still miss
very much the tools and machines to create OpenThings, augment our local
life support systems with the help of automated workhalls and so on.
Capitalistic consumerism has killed much of our productive potential, we
are damned to be non-productive.
But again you could always say the glass is half full or half - empty. We
have such an amazing gain in network power, that we can not blame the
world for our underuse of this power.

Of course, I disagree with you completely that the power of OpenSoftware
can do anything to bring us near TobinTax or other reformatory goals.
Please accept that lots of people in Oekonux share the conviction that the
need for a fundamental alternative is linked to the impossibility of
"limited success" of "political action" in this society. As Marx put it,
all our limited success is just there to be put into jeopardy again (cf.
Lohn, Preis und Profit) and we really have to consider leaving the world
of monetary-political solutions especially in a time of crisis. Oekonux in
my understanding is not a "how to" for political organisation. It is a
"how to" for the whole structure of society. It is now that the problems
in each practical field points to the need of a fundamentally different
organisation in society with such a power, that even "ordinary" people
start to "think differently". That is the sexy thing in Oekonux!

c) widening the fields of cooperation. As with local agriculture, we can
do with myriads of cultural fields. People can do music, film-making,
..
here is one of the point where a mutal exchange of idea would be really
useful: as it is hard to think of the "myriads of fields" beforehand..
this
can only come from the people who are working in/near these fields..

I absolutely agree. But we here in Oekonux are constantly doing this hard
work of identifying possibilities, we need feedback from specialists who
share the dream. That is why the diversity in oekonux is so important and
we need people from all fields. People who are frustrated because this
society is turning into producing mere garbage.

d) Improving the impact of cooperation -  by designing institutions,
processes, devices etc.that transfer informational wealth into physical
wealth (we do not have to limit these thoughts to the notorious fabber).
There is a large range from local learning groups that are inspired and
empowered by availability of knowledge and support to Computer
controlled
tools and machinery in workshops and assembling halls. All these
creativity is increasingly resisting to be any longer blocked by the
capitalistic monopolisation of knowledge and information.

absolutly.. again here the knowlege of the people "outside" is essential..

OK. This is a good theme for our oekonux conference in Vienna and we think
we are here not only addressing political people, but also (or even
mainly) people who "run the everyday show".


but i see additional fields:

e) structuring organisations after the model of free software developer
groups. this is probably the field where there could be most intensive
exchange of ideas between social movements and oekonux. there is a strong
dislike for the classical hirarchical organisations and on the other hand
people worry of the lack of efficiency in some "basis-democratic"
processes.. etc.. 

You bet. we have the same discussion in here, (maybe vice versa) with
Stefan Merten insisting that without some kind of H .... the damned thing
won't work. And others that worry about the lack of transparency and
inclusiveness and openness.....

then actually most working structures are, without knowing
it, structured after the software developer model anyway: the people who
do
the work decide how things get implemented and everyone who wants do do it
differently is free to join and help. people should be made aware about
this
principle and there is still a lot of theoretical work to be done on the
limits and usefulness of this...

I agree. May I add: I mostly hate people who think they are competent, but
then they have competence only in one field. But for successful
cooperation, you have to be actively competent in your field, but you have
to have a basic understanding of many other fields. I like the term
"active and passive competence"


In all these respects, we are not physically dependent on the meeting in
Hallein. We can create a meshwork of common thoughts via the tools of
communication that we have set up (list etc.) and they will
automatically
fuel the desire to physically meet, maybe in the aftermath or in 2005.

 maybe. the problem is see: the conference there would have raised the
interest of a lot people three. "what are these people doing there?"
without
that: they will think: "if they do not come here" why should we go to
them?
if they do not think they belong here then probably this has not much to
do
with what we are talking here.....

OK. But that also is an abstract approach to the events. You like to
"stage" things, so they happen more likely. I tend to have the same needs
as you sometimes. But there is an inherent danger, and that is overriding
people. Let us trust that each side does their work properly than
manipulate them into a situation they might not agree with. Let us work on
the manifold ideas that we have shown in this thread. So things will come
together naturally, if they really are compatible.

FranzNah

_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01340 Message: 9/22 L7 [In index]
Message 01367 [Homepage] [Navigation]