Message 07404 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxdeT07404 Message: 1/1 L0 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox] Re: herrschaft



On Tuesday 07 October 2003 22:59, Graham Seaman wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Stefan Merten wrote:
I see this different. In particular in the questions around OHA
(OrganisationHerrschaftAnarchismus = OrganizationDominationAnarchism)
we made a lot of progress.

This is one of the discussions I didn't follow at all on the German
list, and I would guess most people on the english list don't know
anything about it either. Would it be possible for someone to summarize
the main concerns for the English list? (maybe someone relatively
neutral in the current discussion would be best if such a thing is
possible ;-) (Casimir? Thomas?)

Like StefanMn and ThomasBe I am not neutral. I only can sketch opposites 
in the debate. However, this is a field full of mines, therefore, forgive 
me if I miss a point. Here is my perception:

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)?

This question can not be answered by just following any holy true theory. 
Nobody and no theory give any answer, because either it is not in the 
scope at all or it is shifted to a far later time ("communism" what 
ever). However, from free software we learn, that it is a question that 
is obviously there today, not in a crystalline sense, but in practice 
with all contradiction of this practice e.g. the maintainer model, the 
self-organizational principles emerged in free software, the 
selfunfolding/selbstentfaltung etc.

Therefore, the ODA-debate is threefold (with decreasing consensus):
- interpreting free software: what _do_ we see there (e.g. the germform
  thesis is located here...)
- sketching free society: can free software principles be applied to whole
  society - strongly dependent what these principles are (meaning: what we
  think, we see there)
- thinking human beings: the two points above are heavyly penetrated with
  the different views on humans - having a lot of sources: personal
  experiences in groups, insights in different psychological theories etc.

Btw: In this sense the ox-topic is much, much broader than attac ever can 
be, because - in my view - we face "the whole question".

This for me is "trans-left", because we move beyond the given 
[bourgois|any-term-you-like|void] framework. This includes our thinking.
In some field we can observe and do this today, in other fields not.

From an immanent perspective no one can say, "we made progress" there. 
Progress is only thinkable in terms our making opposites clearer, not in 
the sense finding a (or "the") solution, because there is no standpoint 
from which progress can be identified. What in StefanMns view is 
progress, is in my view sometimes regress - and I guess, the same occurs 
reversed too.

All others differences in detail can be deduced from the sketch above.

"Fragend gehen wir voran" (preguntando caminamos)

Ciao,
Stefan

-- 
    Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft ver.di
    Internetredaktion, Projekt di.ver
    Potsdamer Platz 10, 10785 Berlin
--
    ver.di: http://www.verdi.de
    di.ver: http://verdi.org
    privat: http://www.meretz.de
--


________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organisation: projekt oekonux.de



[English translation]
Thread: oxdeT07404 Message: 1/1 L0 [In index]
Message 07404 [Homepage] [Navigation]