Message 07642 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxdeT07642 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] Rules and alienation (was: Re: SpamAssassin and OHA)



Hi Stefan et al,

first, let me say: thank you for your reports from Geneva!

Now, some veto you maybe already expected by me;-)

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.

* 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.

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. 
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.

* 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.

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".

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

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

  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. 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.

* 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".

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. 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.

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".

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).

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.

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.

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

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

Dito.

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: oxdeT07642 Message: 1/1 L0 [In index]
Message 07642 [Homepage] [Navigation]