Message 01869 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01324 Message: 63/104 L7 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Re: herrschaft



* Ref.: »Re: [ox-en] Re: herrschaft«
*        Graham Seaman 	(2004-01-14  09:54)

Hi Graham,

I've cut out everything from your mail apart from one point I want to 
question... (I'm not sure if the original formulation was you/Stefan 
Mz/Casi...)

Well, it's not mine (-- I think it was attributed to Stefan Mz.)

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Stefan Merten wrote:

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.

I always used to be very against libertarianism. Now I'm finding the logic
of my own positions is pushing me in that direction. I'm not happy about 
this, so would gladly be told why the following suggestion is wrong:

There is an 'invisible hand' in a free society. It doesn't work 
through the medium of money, but directly through need. If I (for large
enough values of I) need some software, but that software doesn't exist
in free form, I will write it. If the software already exists in just the
form I want it, I won't bother. The supply of programmers for particular
types of program is regulated by need: this invisible hand is the hand 
that scratches your own itch...

My attempt at picturing a new mode of organizing production
(etc.) would deny the use (and existence) of invisible hands.
Need as an invisible hand is nothing else than the state of
mankind before it started to become class society. (I mean what
is called Ur-Kommunismus in German, how does this translate to
English?).  Every invisible hand is a mythical thing.

So I would replace the "invisible hand" with "vision" and
"conscious action" .

May be I should better call it something like "consciousnessful
acting" in order to hint at the difference between what I mean,
and what I take for our current level of "consciousness", a
mixture of belief and individual awareness.

And I would not see the "need" as limited as you do (here).  It
sounds a bit like "if you're hungry, you will go and do something
about it...".  The difference between a one-off reaction to a
need and the organization of life lies within the level of
consciousness.  Over most parts of history this
quasi-consciousness was hidden in various myths, because people
could not grasp what they did and how to consciously organize
it... so they pictured it out of themselves and put it into
"inherited wisdom" or "god" or "commandments" or "law" or "habit"
or "tradition" etc..  And that's why this part of history has
been called pre-history of the human kind.

(I'm not sure if it helps to supplement the "need" with "desire"
and "whish"... because all of them exist on fairly unconscious
levels too, and, usually are dealt with, as if they were of
biological nature...)

----
I think this refers to both of your questions, but I'm not sure
how far I'm off the mark by your account (probably very fa...;)


Regards,
Casi.
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01324 Message: 63/104 L7 [In index]
Message 01869 [Homepage] [Navigation]