Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] _happy_ poltical things

[Robin Green]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:31:46PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Robin Green writes:
> 
> >> The "Intro to ParEcon" page there links to an essay titled "Socialism
> >> as it was Always Meant to Be."  That essay, for example, spends a fair
> >> amount claiming it is a workable system because nobody has bothered to
> >> debunk it yet -- and ignores the historical counterexamples.
> >
> > Such as?
> >
> > The Soviet Union was not socialist, it was state capitalist.
> 
> That is the kind of semantic game that seems to distinguish ParEcon
> from honest socialism: ParEcon wants to use loaded words in a crude
> form of verbal judo (calling the Soviet Union "state capitalist"
> because that demonizes capitalism).

No, it's not because it demonises capitalism. It's because the Soviet Union
was not socialism in the sense in which I mean it: rather, it had a ruling
class which exploited the mass of working people in an attempt to "compete"
economically and militarily with the US, and it was undemocratic.

> The original goal of the Soviet Union was socialism. The problems in
> implementing a socialist system are in transition.  Worker-oriented
> socialism appears unstable, so somebody comes along and takes over.

No, the worker's soviets were not crushed by the Bolsheviks because they
were "unstable". They were crushed because the Bolshevik leadership
didn't *want* true, led-from-below socialism.

Elites, with a class interest in preserving their own elite status, do not
disappear overnight. Some of them may be replaced by different *people*,
but you can't get rid of elites with a relatively small band of
revolutionaries (as in the Russian Revolution). You need mass popular
political consciousness.

> > Beyond that, without knowing what your specific problems with the Debian
> > process are, I can't really respond to those insinuations.
> 
> I don't have objections to the Debian process being used for something
> like Debian; on the whole, it works fairly well there.  I think the
> weaknesses it has shown lately would prove fatal to any project where
> it had to feed people or structure their lives.
> 
> If you want to know what weaknesses I am talking about, they mostly
> revolve around two things.
> 
> First is the definition of free software, which for Debian is a core
> issue (there would be parallel defining policies for any ParEcon
> group).  The Debian Free Software Guidelines take up about half of the
> Debian Social Contract.  Debates whether software X is freely licensed
> or not are frequent and noisy, even when software X is used by a tiney
> fraction of the users.  Current example: O'Caml.

OK, there are allegedly "frequent and noisy debates" about certain issues
in Debian. So what? Why would this "prove fatal" to a parecon?

In terms of the specific example of free software licenses, we're already
agreed that this is not a life or death issue. So you must be trying to
extrapolate these disagreements into wider disagreements.

But that's really quite tenuous. As I previously mentioned, there is a
field of study called conflict resolution.
If there is more incentive to get a decision right (because you won't be
able to eat or buy your children presents if the community gets it "wrong"),
there will be more incentive to apply conflict resolution techniques.

Those who aren't interested in a decision won't get involved, usually,
therefore they won't necessarily be affected by a spat.

Also, people tend to behave on mailing lists differently to in face
to face meetings.

I don't see the great danger here, although I accept that ultimately the burden
of proof is on us. Pareconists have to set up more organisations that do useful
things and are organised along the lines that we propose for an entire world
(suitably modified and truncated for scale, of course, necessarily). Then we
can provide slightly more convincing evidence that our ideas do indeed work.

> Second is perceived lack of progress by critical workers (accounts
> maintainers, ftpmaster, etc): Every four or six months, someone
> suggests a General Resolution to somehow force another Debian
> developer to do what the first person thought needed to be done.  This
> falls flat because the only stick is to remove the second DD, and
> there is no guarantee that a replacement will be found or will do the
> thing being demanded.

In parecon, if you don't do your job properly, you don't get paid.
(Well, exceptions may be made for honest mistakes, but not for laziness,
because that would be unjust.) This quote "punishment" unquote is not
available in Debian (by and large) so it is not really a meaningful comparison.

(I don't mean to suggest there would be no welfare system, I'm just not
categorising welfare as "pay", obviously.)

If (thanks to future advanced nanotech or something) poverty is eliminated
and people don't need to work in order to buy food, that would be equally a
problem for capitalism as it would be for parecon: how to motivate people?
I think that parecon would motivate people much more because it would involve
more meaningful work, more ethical work, and happier workplaces.

> For Debian, that kind of discussion and debate is acceptable.

So, when we are arguing about life and death issues, discussion and debate
is not acceptable. Riiiiiiight.

>  People
> are passionate about free software, but since they are bound to
> disagree, there is a lot of stress.

Your fatuous implication that parecon would cause more stress than the daily 
grief
caused by capitalism, with all its bombings, preventable starvation, preventable
diaharea (sp), exploitation, prostitution, child labour, slavery, etc. etc., is
duly noted and ridiculed.

Only a comparatively well-off borgeious (and I include about 99% of USians in 
this
category) could make such an implication.
-- 
Robin

pgpMVL0n_rpNo.pgp
Description: PGP signature