Re: [ox-en] Mutual support, etc. and Free Software (was: Re: Next successful Free
- From: Michael Bouwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
I would put the debate in the following way.
Stefan insists on the non-reciprocal basis of peer production /DFS, and I believe it is correct, and that it only works in the context of an abundance of resources, hence it <cannot> function as a principle for the non-abundant sphere, i.e. the material sphere of exchange.
Franz insists on the reciprocity model that would provide an alternative to the current form of exchange, and his vision would be a betterment of the existing societal model.
They are not in contradiction, but complementary in a diffirentiated and integrated complex society.
Hybrid forms between the two are possible. Peer production in the immaterial sphere, while producer cooperatives, drawn from the same community, find arrangements for the material production.
Michel
Franz Nahrada <f.nahrada reflex.at> wrote:
Stefan Merten schrieb am Dienstag, 25. Oktober 2005 um 19:49 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]:
Thanks again for pointing this out so clearly so finally it is on the
table now and we can try to find a new start here or agree to
disagree. For me if the principles of Free Software are put in the
center of a new paradigm for society then we need to explore how Free
Software overcomes the anarchist's paradise *and* exchange based
forms. We *must* take the facts of Free Software into account.
Otherwise Oekonux would be just another ideological framework with
exactly no relevance in the real world.
We agree on that point, but the facts of Free Software are just a part of
the picture. However, there are some grave misunderstandings that can be
clariufied very quickly:
Again self-providing is contrary to the facts in Free Software.
Self-providing in Free Software would mean that everyone writes
his/her own editor, compiler, window system and so on. In the contrary
Free Software projects are in some sense centralized because there is
a project which maintains the product and cares about its development.
The result of this product is then mass-reproduced by digital copy to
everyone who needs it. So in a sense we have mass production in Free
Software. Also in this respect Free Software is very much like the
capitalist mode of production.
Self-providing is falling increasingly apart in a "public" part and in a
"personal" part.
The public part is the software, the design of the processes, tools and
machines, the exchange of knowledge and building bloks. High Tech
Self-Providing is a Global Enterprise, because everyone uses the same body
of knowledge and the same array of possible technologies. If we share the
design of stirling engines and we share our experiences, we can make this
tool better and better.
Building stirling engines might be done by manufacturers (then its mostly
on a paid base) or by people that specialise on that job because they have
mutual agreements.
In you imagination, there are vast automated factories assembling material
objects and spitting them out for free. We have real differences here,
because I say that this linear approach to production does not work unless
you organize a whole society around this big machine. thats OHA, and a big
deal of constraint on peoples lives.
Yes, our differences are becoming clearer and clearer.
I stop here because I think these things are really crucial and we
need to clarify them.
So far I can see we agree that Selbstentfaltung is necessary. Fine.
But I say that mutual support, gifts, agreement on the level of
society, moral obligation, self-providing, local production are *no*
features of Free Software. Indeed when I remember my anarchist times
these features are a perfect anarchist program. In fact it is a
perfect vision of the anarchist's paradise. So after all these years I
finally learned that the anarchist's paradise is contrary to the
practice of Free Software :-) .
I have no anarchist ideal in mind and am just considering the principles
of sustainability and technological feasibility of things. It is easier to
arrange perfect cycles of Selbstentfaltung in smaller social arrangements,
its possible to make them powerful and efficient by technology.
Instead Free Software in all these areas is much more similar to the
capitalist mode of production than to the anarchist's paradise.
However, it overcomes the exchange principle and thus overcomes a lot
of the negative sides of exchange and this is probably the point why
we find it an interesting model.
I am convinced that I root my ideas as much in the practise of Free
Software like you do, so we might give each other the privilege of doubt
wether one or the other way is correct. But one thing for me is clear: the
more central thoughts and principles are shared, the more freedom of
action and production at a decentral level. This is something that you
seem to contradict.
Franz
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de