Re: [ox-en] Mutual support, etc. and Free Software
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 09:05:37 +0100
Hi Franz and all!
3 weeks (21 days) ago Franz Nahrada 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,
Good.
but the facts of Free Software are just a part of
the picture.
Well, since Oekonux' point of departure is Free Software - and nothing
else - other parts of the picture must be at least compatible with
Free Software. I can not see how picture elements which are in hefty
contradiction to the principles of the production of Free Software can
be included. So IMHO there need be a reasonable integration or
otherwise these picture elements are probably a part of a different
picture in its own right.
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.
What?
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.
So this is actually not self-providing in any useful sense of the
word.
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.
Again no self-providing beyond what we see in markets. I mean a
purchase contract is also a mutual agreement.
So what you call self-providing is actually no self-providing. In the
contrary it is as much self-providing as it is market relations. Why
call it self-providing then? Can you think of a more applicable term?
In you imagination, there are vast automated factories assembling material
objects and spitting them out for free.
Well, apart from the "for free" part this is not my imagination but
capitalists make it more and more reality.
Whether they are vast or not IMHO depends largely on what makes sense
if you look at the production process. In current factories there is
capitalism included but there are also technological reasons for big
factories and there are a number of things which simply can not be
done in a decentralized manner like in any household or community
without destroying nature even faster.
Localized production can make sense for certain things but saying that
this is an end in itself is IMHO pure ideology. I see not even a
generic reason to attempt this.
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.
I don't agree with this because IMHO this is true for the most part of
the industrial age but this aspect will loose strength in a
post-industrial age - just as industrialized societies stopped
revolving around the soil.
But even if I'd agree with this: What's wrong with it?
thats OHA, and a big
deal of constraint on peoples lives.
Why? I mean if the things necessary for a decent life are available
for free how is this imposing a constraint on people? I mean if they
prefer to get back to the soil and eat only their homegrown bread they
are free to do this.
Also I'm absolutely sure there are enough engineers out there who
would *love* to care about this type of production. May be such
engineer's type of Selbstentfaltung is something which is a bit hard
to understand if you are not an engineer yourself.
Yes, our differences are becoming clearer and clearer.
Indeed. Since you are pursuing your vision so heavily in Oekonux I'd
really be interested in some reasoning - not only visions.
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
Sorry, but these values are main building blocks of the anarchist
ideal society. I have been part of the anarchist movement for many
years and I know what I'm talking about here. It only took a bit long
to recognize this so clearly.
and am just considering the principles
of sustainability
If you are looking for sustainability there are really, really enough
examples showing that projects built on these values are not
sustainable. During the 1970s and 1980s a number of such projects came
into being and very few of them survived not talking of being
successful on any level comparable to the success of Free Software.
Again I watched these things for many years and I know what I'm
talking about.
Can you give at least any idea why these projects which are so much in
line with your ideals should be more sustainable today?
and technological feasibility of things.
Well, if you think along the lines of technological feasibility then I
think the best point of departure is to check (industrial) reality.
This shows very well what is feasible now and if you care to ask
engineers you may also learn the reasons why things are as they are.
It is easier to
arrange perfect cycles of Selbstentfaltung in smaller social arrangements,
I agree mostly. Free Software projects are usually also relatively
small social arrangements. However, I did not hear of even one Free
Software project where contributors tried to live together or work on
their own soil. Thus I conclude that living together is hardly
something inherent to a small social arrangement.
its possible to make them powerful and efficient by technology.
Can you give any reason beyond trivial reasons like technology
empowering everybody?
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,
If this is so how do you explain the hefty contradictions?
so we might give each other the privilege of doubt
wether one or the other way is correct.
Sure.
However, - and this is really one of the nice things of Oekonux - we
have Free Software as a living and visible practice we can learn from
day by day. We both agree that we need to take this into account and
this is what I'm asking for.
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.
Why should I? Free Software is a good example for this principle
because it empowers each and everyone using it. However, this
empowerment happens without mutual support, gifts, agreement on the
level of society, moral obligation, self-providing, or local
production. Though it is not based on these principles this
empowerment is feasible technologically and it is sustainable. I think
this alone says a lot about the mentioned ideals and their relation to
Free Software phenomenons.
Mit Freien Grüßen
Stefan
--
Please note this message is written on an offline laptop
and send out in the evening of the day it is written. It
does not take any information into account which may have
reached my mailbox since yesterday evening.
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de