On Nov 27, 2010 7:54 AM, "Paul D. Fernhout" <pdfernhout@kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/10 11:32 AM, Thomas Fledrich wrote:
>>> That's a great point. Equity is a big issue in any alternative social
>>> arrangement. That may be why such things tend to work best at either the
>>> very small level (the extended family or clan, or the local neighborhood
>>> that is strongly socially connected already), or the very large level (the
>>> entire society).
>>
>> Thanks, I agree on the part about the small level, but not so much
>> about the large one. My objection is that the large level is usually
>> run by an elite composed of the most power hungry people of society
>> (with a few lucky exceptions), who rely on top down hierarchical
>> structures ultimately enforced by physical force to make the rest of
>> society obey their rules.
>
> I think this is true up to a point. And that is certainly the narrative
> that both the US left and right have been pushing in various ways to
> explain our society. To the left, it is greedy elites that steal from
> the middle class and poor to enrich themselves. To the right, it is the
> lazy elites that steal from the hard working rich people, and in order
> to get elected these lazy elites give stuff to the undeserving poor who
> waste it and use it on drugs and raising more losers, and who keep
> everyone else poor and suffering by too much regulation. Or something
> like that. There is truth and falsehood on both plot lines.
>
> One issue is Manuel De Landa's point that all real systems are composed
> of both hierarchies and meshworks, so a hierarchy-only model of our
> social structure is too simplistic.
> http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/meshwork.htm
> "Indeed, one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into
> villains and meshworks into heroes, not only because, as I said, they
> are constantly turning into one another, but because in real life we
> find only mixtures and hybrids, and the properties of these cannot be
> established through theory alone but demand concrete experimentation."
>
> Another issue is that even if we have a social structure with aspects of
> an elite imposing their will on others through violence (and
> propaganda), it is only possible while most people decide to play along
> as "guards":
> http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html
> and it would not work if most people decided they had enough:
> http://www.the-open-boat.com/Gatto.html
> and it is ultimately our collective mythology (about scarcity, I'd
> suggest) that holds the whole thing together:
> http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402
>
> So, really, it is our social paradigm defined by our collective
> mythology that makes it all happen. If you can change that mythology at
> all levels of the society, eventually the rest of the society will change.
>
> As I see it, frankly, only some people really enjoy engineering and
> construction (even if more might with the right chance to learn about
> it). If you want your homes to be well-built, and your cars to be
> reliable, you need to somehow get those people involved with those
> processes in a way they enjoy (that includes "Autonomy, Mastery, and
> Purpose", see 5 minutes in here).
> "RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us "
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
>
> When someone talks about "co-ownership" that gets partly at the notions
> of autonomy, mastery, and purpose that connect with motivation to do
> complex tasks. But we usually talk about it in terms of the issue of who
> gets the material rewards, which may be misleading ourselves.
>
> The same though could be said about a lot of other things we need to
> have happen in our society -- growing food, talking about social
> systems, helping the sick, raising the next generation. Not everyone at
> a certain stage in their life wants to do every thing, and some people
> like some things more than others for whatever reason. But to the extent
> these tasks involve some complex thought, feeling autonomy, mastery, and
> purpose is going to lead people to engage in them -- assuming that
> their basic material needs are already met and, as is said in that
> youtube video, essentially the issue of money is off the table because
> it is adequate (or there is a basic income, a gift economy, or
> sufficient but not excessive resource-based planning that meets basic
> needs otherwise).
>
> Neither the conventional left or conventional right have much sensible
> to say about that issue of motivation and how work is structured:
> http://idlenest.freehostia.com/mirror/www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html
> "Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to
> divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any
> objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working."
>
> The argument over the US government buying GM was not about working
> conditions and autonomy, mastery, and purpose, even if it was supposedly
> about "jobs" (and maintaining the primacy of an income-through-jobs link
> for survival in our society for non-wealthy people).
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
> ====
> The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies
> of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
>
> On 11/24/10 11:32 AM, Thomas Fledrich wrote:
>>> That's a great point. Equity is a big issue in any alternative social
>>> arrangement. That may be why such things tend to work best at either the
>>> very small level (the extended family or clan, or the local neighborhood
>>> that is strongly socially connected already), or the very large level (the
>>> entire society).
>>
>> Thanks, I agree on the part about the small level, but not so much
>> about the large one. My objection is that the large level is usually
>> run by an elite composed of the most power hungry people of society
>> (with a few lucky exceptions), who rely on top down hierarchical
>> structures ultimately enforced by physical force to make the rest of
>> society obey their rules.
>
> I think this is true up to a point. And that is certainly the narrative
> that both the US left and right have been pushing in various ways to
> explain our society. To the left, it is greedy elites that steal from
> the middle class and poor to enrich themselves. To the right, it is the
> lazy elites that steal from the hard working rich people, and in order
> to get elected these lazy elites give stuff to the undeserving poor who
> waste it and use it on drugs and raising more losers, and who keep
> everyone else poor and suffering by too much regulation. Or something
> like that. There is truth and falsehood on both plot lines.
>
> One issue is Manuel De Landa's point that all real systems are composed
> of both hierarchies and meshworks, so a hierarchy-only model of our
> social structure is too simplistic.
> http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/meshwork.htm
> "Indeed, one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into
> villains and meshworks into heroes, not only because, as I said, they
> are constantly turning into one another, but because in real life we
> find only mixtures and hybrids, and the properties of these cannot be
> established through theory alone but demand concrete experimentation."
>
> Another issue is that even if we have a social structure with aspects of
> an elite imposing their will on others through violence (and
> propaganda), it is only possible while most people decide to play along
> as "guards":
> http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html
> and it would not work if most people decided they had enough:
> http://www.the-open-boat.com/Gatto.html
> and it is ultimately our collective mythology (about scarcity, I'd
> suggest) that holds the whole thing together:
> http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402
>
> So, really, it is our social paradigm defined by our collective
> mythology that makes it all happen. If you can change that mythology at
> all levels of the society, eventually the rest of the society will change.
>
> As I see it, frankly, only some people really enjoy engineering and
> construction (even if more might with the right chance to learn about
> it). If you want your homes to be well-built, and your cars to be
> reliable, you need to somehow get those people involved with those
> processes in a way they enjoy (that includes "Autonomy, Mastery, and
> Purpose", see 5 minutes in here).
> "RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us "
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
>
> When someone talks about "co-ownership" that gets partly at the notions
> of autonomy, mastery, and purpose that connect with motivation to do
> complex tasks. But we usually talk about it in terms of the issue of who
> gets the material rewards, which may be misleading ourselves.
>
> The same though could be said about a lot of other things we need to
> have happen in our society -- growing food, talking about social
> systems, helping the sick, raising the next generation. Not everyone at
> a certain stage in their life wants to do every thing, and some people
> like some things more than others for whatever reason. But to the extent
> these tasks involve some complex thought, feeling autonomy, mastery, and
> purpose is going to lead people to engage in them -- assuming that
> their basic material needs are already met and, as is said in that
> youtube video, essentially the issue of money is off the table because
> it is adequate (or there is a basic income, a gift economy, or
> sufficient but not excessive resource-based planning that meets basic
> needs otherwise).
>
> Neither the conventional left or conventional right have much sensible
> to say about that issue of motivation and how work is structured:
> http://idlenest.freehostia.com/mirror/www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html
> "Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to
> divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any
> objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working."
>
> The argument over the US government buying GM was not about working
> conditions and autonomy, mastery, and purpose, even if it was supposedly
> about "jobs" (and maintaining the primacy of an income-through-jobs link
> for survival in our society for non-wealthy people).
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
> ====
> The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies
> of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
>
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment