[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] PLUG vs. PLUG

[gepr at tempusdictum.com]

Jeme A Brelin writes:
 > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 gepr at tempusdictum.com wrote:
 > >
[...]
 > I think this is consistent with my simpler statement.  Existing power
 > structures cannot retain their power whilst democratic forms function.  To
 > ensure their entrenched power's future, they must dismantle the democratic
 > forms.

Well, I agree with your gist; but, not this particular statement.
Existing power structures can retain and encourage democratic tools
and ensure their power.  They do this by rhetoric and persuasion.
Democracy is not about what individuals _would_have_done_ or _would_
have_thought_ had they not been influenced by the emergent forcing
structure of societal influences.  It's about giving them the ability
to express and act upon whatever they think.  And what they think is
controllable through influence.

And, just like in a laser, these forcing structures are part of a 
positive feedback loop that reinforces their own strength.  For example,
a democratic system can be perceived as non-democratic just because most
of the people involved are incapable of imaginging the infinity of 
possible worlds out there beyond what they see in front of them.... 
e.g. the US.

The US _is_ a democratic state (no, not _purely_ democratic...  mostly
democratic... or "alot democratic", if you choose to pick nits).  But
because a large majority of our populace is controlled by our
expensive media outlets and the powerful have almost exclusive access
to those media outlets, those power structures retain power.  (Note
that legislation and the FCC has nothing to do with what I'm talking
about... I'm talking about moneymoneymoneymoney ... and time.  For
example, I could get on a publicly operated station and state my
opinions IFF I wanted to spend time away from revenue-earning work in
order to do so.  On the other hand, if I could _pay_ a publicist to do
it for me, then I'd have power.  The FCC and all that open frequency
rhetoric is just a distraction made to trap the hyper-intellectual
into arguing instead of acting.)

So, even if you don't buy all that gobbledygook, I think there are
other ways a power structure can maintain control, aside from
dismantling the democratic forms.

 > Your one example of "terrorism" is nothing more than striking against
 > entrenched power to gain self-determination.  The kind of terrorism that
 > threatens a democratic structure is the kind imposed by the likes of
 > Monsanto, GE, and GM.

Well, my example of terrorism was intended to point at the tendency
towards fascism away from liberalism because things like profiling and
detainment-without-due-process are shown (or believed to have been
shown by law enforcement) to be more efficient ways of combatting
terrorism than more liberal methods.  But, the same could be true of 
large companies.  Investment strategies work the same way.  It's 
much more efficient to invest in a product that is backed by pedigreed
humans than it is to invest in a product some weirdo thought up in 
his basement.  So, the ability for weirdo inventors to get inventions
funded by companies like Monsanto and GE has become vanishingly small
(especially now that the dot-com bubble has burst).

 > > Some of these people in power are Evil... But, most are well intentioned
 > > and think they're doing a good thing.
 > 
 > I don't believe there are "bad guys".  Everyone thinks they're making
 > things better.  The only real conflict are the conflicting ideas of what
 > "better" means.  If folks were open and honest about what their ideals
 > were, we wouldn't have nearly the conflict we have today.

Well, I _do_ believe that Evil people exist, though my definition of
Evil is probably entirely private.  I just like saying the word
"evil". [grin]

 > > So, there is always an equilibrium between fascism (not Nazism, mind
 > > you) and anarchy.  Sometimes we swing one way, other times we swing the
 > > other.
 > 
 > Woah woah.  I think we have different ideas of both anarchism and fascism.
 > Fascism is a very specific political-economic system designed to increase
 > the pace of industrialization and driven by an elite few.  Anarchism is a
 > purely political system wherein all decisions rest in the hands of the
 > individual and the aggregate will of the people becomes the sole driving
 > force of civilization.
[... moved this section to below ...]
 > Now, if you meant that there is an equilibrium between anarchism and
 > authoritarianism, I'd see what you meant (and respectfully disagree
 > because the authoritarians, by their nature, hold all the cards or do not
 > exist).

I don't intend to argue about words or argue from the dictionary; but,
my usage of the term fascism is very closely related to the
definitions I find in dictionaries.  The primary component of that use
of the word is authoritarianism.  To boot, I am totally ignorant of
political science and would never pretend to understand what "fascism
as a form of government" really means.  But, I think in good old generic,
layman's English, I'm using it correctly.

I can argue more coherently about whether authoritarianism is binary
(exists completely or does not exist at all).  But, that's too much
of a digression from the point (which was about why democratic systems 
seem to dissolve over time).

 > I would argue that Capitalist Republicanism (to
 > label the system exsting in the United States wherein the economy exists
 > for the sole purpose of re-enforcing the driving force of the monied
 > interests) is different from both of these and pulling on another axis
 > entirely (rather than being a point along a single continuum).

I'm interested to hear what the other axis is.  And I don't understand 
your definition of Capitalist Republicanism at all, I'm afraid.  If/when
you get time, I'd appreciate more words thrown at that, too.

Just to be clear, this conversation is very relevant to open-source
and somewhat relevant to linux.  I have some friends who really just
can't stand linux because of the development methods.  These are
typically Free/Open/NetBSD people; but, I get similar comments from
NT-ers and the occasional oddball talking about Plan 9 or the Hurd.
It relates fundamentally to an open source project I'm (or used to be)
deeply involved in called Swarm.

Things like control of who can commit to CVS, whether code reviews are
necessary or if you just do all your filtering guild-style and make
sure the committers are ... [ahem] ... committed to quality, whether
the feature-set can be guided by input from the user community
(Jeffersonian) or if the vision has to be maintained by the elite and
fed to the users, etc.  If it weren't for these issues in systems
engineering, I wouldn't give a flying *&^%*%^&%* about open source,
frankly.  I use whatever works.  And in my experience, open source is
so much more robust, simply because it encourages inherently open
systems (in the sense of physical, constituent independent, regulated
solely by the ontology, systems).

I don't buy the neoSocialist agenda of RMS (though I will forever be
indebted to and respectful of the man for what he's achieved and the
productive result of his agenda).  I don't like the viral nature of
the GPL.  And I _hate_ that open source advocates are pressing for
legislation to fossilize (and therefore impede or stop) what could be
the most important social transformation of the last millenium.

[whew]  I'll quit now. [grin]

 > Then it wasn't all in vain.  That isn't to say that the purpose of that
 > discussion was to drive members from their organization, but that the
 > discussion was worthwhile if someone found it illuminating.

I don't care what the purpose was.  I'm just glad PLUG shows the
tolerance it shows towards off-topic discussions.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com