Message 02037 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01363 Message: 26/59 L9 [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] Rules and alienation



Hi StefanMz and list!

I'm slowly catching up on this list. I just started reading the
threads around this very interesting topic. The first few
contributions were very interesting. Much to learn :-) .

I'll quote the whole post because it is so long ago. Much of my
comments is thinking aloud.

Last month (46 days ago) Stefan Meretz wrote:
Now, some veto you maybe already expected by me;-)

Very interesting, Stefan, very interesting. I think I understood a bit
more of your perspective.

On Saturday 13 December 2003 01:29, Stefan Merten wrote:
Ok, I made up my mind to think that OHA is mainly about rules.
Relevant questions are

* How are these rules created?

  Of course this includes questions like:

  - Who makes the rules?

  - What purpose these rules are made for?

  - How do rules develop?

Rules do not develop, they become developed.

I'd agree if you are saying that it is always persons who are actively
developing rules - insofar rules do not develop on its own, yes. Also
from what you wrote below I understood that you agree with me that
rules are rooted in some practice between people - or at least can be
rooted there. I think this is important because rules not developed
this way are probably alienated from the group per se.

However, I think it makes sense to check how rules develop under
certain conditions. Insofar I'd support my original formulation. I.e.:
Are there patterns in human behavior which seem to unfold at least
often under some certain conditions. I guess you would reject the
whole question because that means too much generalization. Do you?

A simple example would be a question like: What happens to rules if a
group grows? Could one talk of some common development when a group
grows from say 2 to 20 to 200 to 2000 to 20000 to 200000 to 2000000 to
20000000 persons? I *guess* there are some common denominators here
and I think checking this is useful to understand how things work.

For instance in Free Software I'd ask whether there are observable
changes in the ways rules (get) developed when a project grows.

That is: If they grow at all. May be we come to the conclusion that
Free Software projects for the purposes of this debate do not grow
beyond a certain limit. Which would be an interesting observation in
itself and would evoke new questions.

* How are these rules implemented?

  This includes the application of force. If anybody find any way to
  cleanly separate between oppression and application of force I would
  really be interested. However, I'm quite convinced: There is none.

I'm convinced: there is one. Otherwise, it is not emancipatory.

Ok, just to check: You think there can be emancipatory forms of
application of force. If so then this is something we agree on.

However, you can not solve this problem by defining oppression vs. usage
of force, because there is no standpoint from where you can define it.

So as a result you would reject the (morally loaded) notion of
oppression completely. Right? There are always and only applications
of force. I'd agree with this.

Oh well, but one paragraph above you said: There is a way to separate.
If so can you imagine a way without that standpoint?

Or you could put it the other way round: What for one person is
oppression is to another person an emancipatory form of application of
force. This is using the individual standpoints of everybody you like.
But then it would also not make sense of talking of oppression at all.

Probably I still don't understand :-( .

For me, it is a process, not a defineable status. And this process has a
direction towards more freedom to act or not. This is the core of
selforganisation.

Hmm... This is the point I have difficulties with. In the general case
I would reject the bourgeoise thinking of freedom of one social entity
(i.e. person or group) automatically limits the freedom of other
social entities. In the contrary I think expanding the freedom of one
social entity may result in the expansion of freedom of other social
entities as well. This is what we see in Free Software. I think we can
easily agree on this.

However, I think there always will be situations where this is not the
case. There will always be situations where the expansion of freedom
of one social entity reduces the freedom of another social entity. In
particular this is the case when limited goods are at stake. In other
words: There will always be conflicts.

Now, I'd be interested in your opinion here. How in case of a conflict
how can you determine the direction towards more freedom to act?
Wouldn't this determination need a standpoint just as much as the
question oppression vs. application of force?

* Who is subject to those rules?

  In a state every inhabitant of the land covered by a state is
  subject to these rules. More and more I think this is a not so good
  principle.

Of course.

And in history this was different anyway. To which rules a person was
subject was often a question to which social group the person
belonged. The rules sticked more to the person than to the territory.
Religious rules are one example, colonists which were invited to
another countries are another example.

As far as I know nation states with their "need" to generate a level
playground - i.e. a market - started to have universal rules. But then
the Roman Empire also had universal rules.

When we think of rules in terms of standards then there might be some
non-market / non-state related reasons to have universal rules. Hmm...

Actually since discussing this topic virtually nobody denied, that
there "must be rules". Of course this means that there must be ways of
implementing these rules - otherwise they are pointless. Also I'd like
to note that al this can be applied to an individual setting up rules
for his/her own behavior as well as rules for groups of people. May be
this is a point we can start off with.

The first question is: What rules are there? Because, there are always
rules, and they are always in some way "implemented".

Ok, so you would at least agree with me that there *are* rules in the
way people interact with their environment - regardless of the
question whether for some reasons they must be there or not.

Of course rules mean exactly some structuring of an otherwise
unstructured space - the freedom of unlimitedness. This structuring is
oppressive as well as it is empowering. You need *some* structure of
the world to do anything at all - and each structure may prevent you
from doing things which might be done in an unstructured or
differently structured space.

An unstructured space is fictious. That is not the question.

I'm really glad you agree with me on this. I think there are many
people on the left which deny that.

So, to me is
is meaningless to demand: You need some structure or: there must be
rules. There are always structures and rules.

Very good. So it makes no sense to fight or even question the
existance of structures and rules *as such*. I perfectly agree with
this and in some way this is the major point I wanted to make when
starting this whole debate.

* A community has "the right", may be even the duty to set up some
  rules for it

Having "a right" sounds to me like "natural law".

I put "the right" in quotes because of that.

This constructs an
abstract frame outside the community process. The danger is: If you put
such "abstracts" outside the community process, you establish alienation.

I see what you mean and think I can agree with this.

However, it makes sense to me to say it the other way round: There is
no community if there are no rules. This is then more of a definition
of the word community. Could you agree with this? (I recall we had at
least something similar on the German list.)

  A community must have rules even to identify itself. For instance
  the major rule of the Oekonux community is that people here are
  interested in the topics Oekonux is discussing (to be short). If
  such a rule would not exist the Oekonux community could not be
  distinguished from a structureless group of people and there would
  be no point is speaking of an Oekonux community at all. So this
  example shows how a rule is necessary to even setup some community.

  Actually I think this is something which is hardly disputable. A
  community has "the right" to setup some rules for itself - as well
  as each individual has.

As you can see: it is disputable, because I disagree.

Yes, the "right"-thing. I agree with your disagreement :-) .

However, on the
level of daily acting, we don't agree (e.g. my exclusion of two guys from
the wak-list), but on this level of generalization.

I do not understand this sentence. Did you mean to say: "However, on
the level of daily acting, we *do* agree (e.g. my exclusion of two
guys from the wak-list), but *not* on this level of generalization."

* Everybody inside or outside this community has to respect these
  rules or otherwise may be subject to some negative consequences

  In a way this is some sort of self-defense. Also I'd say everyone
  who does not comply to the rules of the community s/he's interacting
  with is alienated from this community. Again I think alienation is
  the key aspect here.

In my view, the contrary is true: abstract defined rules are the
startpoint of alienation. Be it from economy or other sources. I am
afraid, that you want to establish such "alternative abstractifications
ruling us".

Ok, ok, let's sort this out calmly because I feel this is one of the
major misunderstandings between us.

I totally agree with you that *abstract* rules are not only the
starting point of alienation, they *are* already alienated. By no way
I want to establish any "alternative abstractifications ruling us". In
the contrary I'm far from this.

I think there are rules, structure, emancipatory form of application
of force, and all this and there is no point in denying that. This is
something we agree on as far as I understood you. However, I for one
feel that this is a major point because a lot of people seem to think
rules, structure, application of force would somehow vanish completely
if we only overthrow capitalism. For instance from what I heard of
Foucault and this whole school seems to say this.

Contrary to what you think I'm looking at all these things to
*prevent* such "alternative abstractifications ruling us". However,
for this I think instead of denying there is rules, structure,
application of force even in emancipatory situations we need to
understand in which way they are different from non-emancipatory
situations.

But, yes, I'd like to have some guidelines which by experience or
science help to set up an emancipatory environment. Please note: I'm
talking of guidelines here - not some "alternative abstractifications"
which apply everywhere. I think such guidelines are empowering because
it helps people to behave in a way which results in a more
emancipatory / pleasant environment for themselves.

Thus I think that actions that comply with the above rule cannot
be called 'oppression'; oppression requires at least that the
above rule is broken.

So you are saying oppression is given only if a rule is broken. What
if there are conflicting rules?

If I throw away the spam I receive, I
don't hurt the right of other people to do the same with the
mails they don't want to read. Therefore, I would not call this
'oppression'.

This is completely true, because it is an immanent part of the community
process.

So this is justified in terms of being emancipatory when looking at
the community.

What about the spammer? Can you make any statement about the spammer
along these terms? Would you simply say that this is a void question
because the spammer is not part of the community? May be as
demonstrated by her/his action of spamming?

This is no rhetoric question and no polemic. I'm really interested in
an answer here.

Maybe one year later the same activity can be felt as
inadequate. Than you have the two classical possibilities: changing the
activities (including the rules) or forking / leaving the cooperation.

Yes. I definitely do not think of rules as being carved into stone. By
definition non-alienated rules must change with the community setting
them up as the community changes.

In this case you make a decision for yourself. However, the
SpamAssassin protecting the Oekonux lists decides *for others* whether
they receive a mail or not.

That's not the point. The point is: Does the rules or action emerge from
the community process or does it come from an "alienator".

Yes, yes, yes :-) ! That is exactly what I'm saying! (I see your face
becoming sceptical :-( .)

If the very same is done by the state we
name this censorship.

No, it is not the same. You can not fork the state. (Well, you can leave,
however, only into other states - not the state as "state". Or: You can
fork, but all current forks are as worse as they can be).

Hmm... When I think longer about this then it boils down to: A rule is
emancipatory as long as you can reasonably leave / fork the community
having this rule. Right?

I can't see how this very same action can be
distinguished in any sane way so I would call it oppression in both
cases - or at your choice in no case. I mean everybody sending mails
to these lists has some intention to inform the people behind the mail
address about something - be it that he is able to get some V*a for a
very low price. Denying that is oppression - or what you would call
it?

Take it practically: I am very happy, that you do this spam filtering.

:-)

I
would complain and finally leave if you would expand filtering to mails
coming from people with positions you don't want to read. This is
censorship, spam filtering is not.

Because spam filtering - accepting there may be gray zones - is
according to the rules of being an open project while filtering posts
which are on-topic but unwanted by someone for reasons of content is
against the rule of being an open project. Right?

For instance spam. I think it is perfectly clear that spam to the
Oekonux lists is as clearly alienated to the goal of Oekonux as
something can possibly be. Thus implementing power structures such
as SpamAssassin to stop spam is taking responsibility for the goals
of the project. By Holloway's definition I guess it would be
instrumental or creative power completely depending on the side you
are currently looking at. I mean the spammer *is* oppressed by
SpamAssassin. And that you implement your power structure in
software does not strip the power structure off. I find this aspect
of Holloway particular weak.

No, it is very clear in Holloways thinking, what instrumental or creative
power is: Holloway does not define an external standpoint, from which he
says: this is instrumental, that is creative power. He has an immanent
perspective. And this is the community process.

Ok, now I can see at least the perspective you think Holloway has.
However, Holloway does all this in a very classical framework. This is
where I personally I'm starting to doubt. But that's not very
relevant.

Well, doing it further abstractly, you can say "there is a spammer
community". But this is crazy. Such abstract debates lead to nothing.

I don't think it is crazy because it is certainly the case that there
is a single spammer - but - sigh - probably more then one ;-) . And a
single spammer may very well be the target of application of force.

From what I understood you are suggesting something along the line:
Just don't care. Check the process of the community which is target of
the spam and if rules against spam emerge from the practice of the
community then it is perfectly ok to apply force to prevent the
spammer from spamming the community. Right?

Well, all still quite raw thoughts. Hope it's useful nonetheless.

Dito.

Definitely. At least to me :-) . Also I'm glad that in this post I
find so much agreement :-) . On the other hand this makes we worry I
misunderstood greatly :-( .


						Mit Freien Grüßen

						Stefan

_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01363 Message: 26/59 L9 [In index]
Message 02037 [Homepage] [Navigation]