Søren in Norwegen

Eigentlich sollte der vorherige Artikel noch einen Tag stehen bleiben, weil der so wichtig ist.

Aber in diesen Artikel (Achtung spon) wird auch ein bisschen ueber die Urspruenge des 1. Mai als Feiertag berichtet.

Dort wird alles nur den Sozialisten zugeschrieben! Das ist eine unglaubliche Frechheit! Denn wie jeder weisz, lag (und liegt) den Sozialisten nichts an einer Aenderung der bestehenden Verhaeltnisse. Das einzige was die (frueher mal) wollten war, am Reichtum teil zu haben. Deswegen haben die auch im Wesentlichen immer nur fuer bessere Bezahlung argumentiert.

Anarchisten hingegen waren immer die Kaempfer fuer mehr Freiheit (was auch implizit mehr Freizeit bedeuteut). Selbstverstaendlich haben wir mitgemacht beim Kampf fuer bessere Bedingungen. Denn ein menschenwuerdiges Leben ist Voraussetzung fuer mehr Freiheit. Aber den Kampf fuer den 8-Stunden Tag, damals im spaeten 19. Jahrhundert, der war maszgeblich von uns Anarchisten beeinflusst.

Und dann diese infame Verdrehung der Geschichte in dem Artikel, dass mehrere Arbeiterfuehrer (vulgo: Sozialisten) nach den Haymarket Riots hingerichtet wurden!

DAS WAREN AUSSCHLIESZLICH ANARCHISTEN (!) die fuer die Taten eines Agent provocateur der Chicagoer Polizei bestraft (und auch ermordet) wurden.

Sozialisten! PAH! Verraeterpack!

Ansonsten wuensche ich noch einen Happy Anarchists Day :)

.oO(Na das ist doch mal ein feiner Beitrag zum 1. Mai)

Auch wenn ich einraeume, dass windows oder word richtig gute Software ist, oder dass apfelprodukte durchaus schick aussehen, so versuche ich doch immer dieses Wort in diesem Zusammenhang zu benutzen.

Auf der Wikipedia kann man dazu lesen:

Das Adjektiv proprietär bedeutet in Eigentum befindlich […]. Es wird in Bezug auf Soft- und Hardware, die auf herstellerspezifischen, nicht veröffentlichten Standards basiert, verwendet, um diese zu freier Software und freier Hardware abzugrenzen.

„Proprietaer“ – da høre immer so „intellektuelles Eigentum beschuetzen“ und andere, kapitalistische Dogmen mitschwingen.

Bei „freier Software“ hingegen, da høre ich immer „frei wie in Redefreiheit und nicht wie in Freibier“ mit.

Oder anders ausgedrueckt: mir ist neulich aufgefallen, wie sich bei mir so ein bisschen eine Art „Ekel“ (wenn auch nur ganz leichter und unterbewusster) vor proprietaereren Løsungen entwickelt hat in den letzten Jahren.

Jaja, ich weisz. Das ist das Lohn und Brot vieler Leute. Aber … … … … und hier hab ich keine Lust und nicht genug Ahnung um darauf einzugehen, inwieweit kapitalistische Dogmen auch mittels freier Software „bedient“ werden kønnen.

Denn nicht-freie Software stirbt mit dem Programmierer.

Als Beispiel wuerde ich gern ein Programm zum Erstellen von Stundenplaenen nehmen. Ich habe schon viele begeisterte Geschichten ueber eins der wohl Besten dieser Art gehørt. Und auch ohne, dass ich es gesehen oder benutzt haette, bin ich mir ganz sicher, dass es sich dabei um ein gar hervoragendes Stueck Software handelt. Aber die Frage ist: was ist, wenn der Programmierer in Rente geht? Da darf das dann niemand weiterpflegen. Schade eigentlich.

Wie komme ich darauf?

Nun ja, vor einiger Zeit begann ich mal wieder einen Text in LaTeX zu verfassen. Und ich brauchte auch Literaturangaben und dafuer benutzte ich bisher immer JabRef. Ein freies Programm, welches mich seit mehr als einer Dekade begleitet hat. Ich war immer total zufrieden und fand es ganz toll. Aber auf einmal ging es nicht mehr. Die grafische Benutzeroberflaeche konnte nicht mehr erstellt werden. „Naja, kein Problem“ dachte ich, „dann installier ich es halt neu“. Das half aber nicht, das Problem zu løsen. Eine kurze Recherche ergab, dass dies vermutlich daran liegt, dass JabRef in Java geschrieben ist. Neuerdings mag es wohl aber nicht mehr unbedingt mit der freien Implementierung der Java Plattform – OpenJDK – zusammenarbeiten. An und fuer sich gar kein Problem. Die Løsung des Problems besteht darin, Oracle Java zu installieren. „Aber Oracle“ dachte ich da, „das riecht so nach proprietaer“. Und tatsaechlich:

Oracle Java is the proprietary, reference implementation for Java.

„Nee“, dachte ich dann so, „das will ich nicht!“. Also entschloss ich schweren Herzens nach einem Ersatz fuer diese Software zu suchen. Und fand auch einen, denn dadurch, dass alles freie Software ist, kamen keine komischen, firmeneigenen Dateiformate, die sonst keiner lesen kann, vor. Und somit war also auch der Uebergang ganz „reibungsfrei“ :) … Toll wa! Freie Software halt :)

In diesem Beitrag wird mal mit ein paar, allgemein angenommenen, Vorstellungen bezueglich des Anarchismus, aufgeraeumt.

Es geht schon schøn los mit (wie immer gilt: alle Hervorhebungen sind von mir, so weit nicht anders angegeben):

Anarchism does not connote absolute, irresponsible, anti-social individual freedom which violates the rights of others and rejects every form of organization and self-discipline.

Und dazu dann gleich weiter so passend:

Absolute individual freedom can be attained only in isolation- if at all: „What really takes away liberty and makes initiative impossible is the isolation which renders one powerless.“

Oder so wie es wohl Alexei Borovoi ausdrueckte:

[…] the proper basis for anarchism in a free society is the equality of all members in a free organization. Social anarchism could be defined as the equal right to be different.

Weiter geht es dann damit, dass

Anarchism Is Not Unlimited Liberty Nor the Negation of Responsibility

Oder anders:

Anarchism is not no government. Anarchism is self-government

Aber es gilt auch:

Self-government means self-discipline.

Und nicht zu vergessen ist:

The alternative to self-discipline is enforced obedience imposed by rulers over their subjects.

Und wer denkt hierbei nicht auch an Hackerspaces:

Anarchists seek to replace the state, not with chaos, but with the natural, spontaneous forms of organization that emerged wherever mutual aid and common interests through coordination and self-government became necessary.

Und es gilt natuerlich:

Society without order (as the term „society“ implies) is inconceivable. But the organization of order is not the exclusive monopoly of the state.

Und hier kommt das Wichtigste:

What Is needed is emancipation from authoritarian institutions over society and authoritarianism within (sic) the organizations themselves.

Was ich ja zuletzt auch hier ansprach.

Und zum Abschluss ist nicht zu vergessen, was wohl Errico Malatesta sagte:

[…] there is [not] „one“ solution to the social problem, but a thousand different and changing solutions, in the same way as social existence is different in time and space.

Interessant, nicht wahr!
Anarchisten sind also (so weit ich weisz) die Einzigen, die darauf hinarbeiten, dass sie selbst abgeschafft werden, weil es ja noch was Tolleres geben kønnte.

Neulich hat LeSpocky mich nochmal extra auf „Science Biggest Fail“ hingewiesen. Ich find das immer toll, durch solche Sachen den Eindruck zu bekommen, dass „die Leute“ mir doch zuhøren und das von mir Gesagte sogar halbwegs richtig einsortiert bekommen. Selbst wenn die e-Mail mit dem Link unverschluesselt war.

Aber darum geht es mir hier gerade gar nicht. Auf das im Artikel Gesagte werde ich an anderer Stelle nochmal Gesondert eingehen.

Mir geht es vielmehr um einen Text, den ich vor ueber 3 Jahren schrieb. Dies im Zuge der Gespraeche mit meinem damaligen Psychologen (deswegen ist der auch auf englisch).
Ich hatte den damals auch so geschrieben, dass der hier verøffentlicht werden sollte. Aber irgendwie hab ich mich fuer so viel „Inneres heraus kehren“ geschaemt. Und dann war es irgendwie nicht mehr aktuell.

In den letzten Monaten hab ich immer mal wieder dran gedacht diesen Text doch noch zu verøffentlichen. Aber es mangelte der Anlass und mir mangelte es nicht an anderem Material.

Wie immer bei vor laengerer Zeit geschriebenen Texten gilt, dass ich mich heute nicht mehr immer so ausdruecken wuerde. Dies hauptsaechlich, weil ich in der Zwischenzeit noch mehr gelesen und dazugelernt habe und mittlerweile einige Dinge ganz anders „einsortiere“ oder unter anderen Blickwinkeln betrachte.

Wie bereits an anderer Stelle, bereitet mir die inhaltliche Ueberarbeitung geschichtlicher Dokumente allerdings irgendwie Bauchschmerzen. Deswegen ist der folgende Text nur bzgl. der grøbsten Rechtschreibfehler korrigiert worden. Auszerdem fuegte ich Links ein (und løschte entsprechende Quellverweise), ordnete die Absatzstruktur, so dass der ganze Text lesbarer ist und hob ein paar wenige Textstellen hervor.

Nach dieser kurzen Einfuehrung nun der vergessene Artikel:

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Science

First I’d like to start why science in the original meaning was and is so important to me.
In the original meaning science „is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe“ and it has (had) a close connection to philosophy.
As the famous physicist Sommerfeld stated once: each physics student must have the chance going directly from a physics lecture to a philosophy seminar – (successfully) opposing the move of the physics seminar rooms to new buildings of the Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich early in the 20th century.
I strongly agree with him but would also include other important sciences like sociology, politics, history, literature etc.

Nowadays „science is a term which […] is often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’“ [Anm: Urspruenglich aus der wikipedia, dort aber nicht mehr zu finden.] – strongly directed towards Karl Popper’s understanding of science (as far as I’m able to understand Popper).

Anyway, I strongly disagree with this limited meaning of science. Maybe my early understanding of science explains best why: I think science is everything that helps to understand the universe (and humans and their behaviour are a part of the universe) and to propel humanity. Of course reproduceable methods and logic must to be used to attain this understanding. These methods can be applied to and within rather „strange“ topics as long as the results are not claimed as valid in the real world (which doesn’t necessarily mean that the results don’t have any implications in the real world – e.g. theology and the whole „christian frame of faith“).

So far to what I mean when I say „science“ in the first and second part of this „essay“ (if not stated otherwise). This is a rather difficult topic and I just
read about a tiny bit of it and understood even less. Much more intelligent people than I am wrote extensively about it. Later I will come back to this
topic.

In retrospective science meant so much for me because it was the only object/matter/thing which was kind to me without conditions (beside my mother).
I have to admit that this is a rather heavy statement. I never had somebody who could be labeled as „friend“ before I was 19/20 years old. Actually I’ve never been very interested in direct social relations (which is still the case but to a lesser extend) even though I was and am very interested in sociology.
During my childhood this is easy to explain I guess: I was bullied (fortunately not very much), the other kids usually were kind of „slow“ in understanding me and they couldn’t explain the things I wanted to know. I wanted to know how the world functions – why is wood swimming (which it doesn’t do in space by the way), why is a mirror mirroring, why is the sky blue, what is the world made of etc. – the reason why I studied physics and why I would do it again.
Now that I know this stuff (or am able to understand explanations in this direction) my interest shifted more towards understanding society, humanity and the behaviour of humans and human constructions (e.g. religion, states, companies etc.).

However, this explains quite good I guess why I say „science was kind to me“ because the deeper I „digged into“ a topic the more I learned, the easier I understood other things. The more I gave (timewise) to science the more I got back. When I was 14 years old I read a whole encyclopedia. My intention is not to boast with this but this were one of the most happy two weeks during my youth – each new page meant more knowledge, more understanding and peace of mind ([figuratively] since I was on the „hunt“ for more knowledge and literally too since other people left me alone).

So I started studying physics. At this time I already was an acolyte of the „religion of science“ (new meaning) and deeply entangled in the new meaning of science (without knowing it).
Fortunately mostly my subconsciousness, and to a lesser degree also my active thinking, was aware of the original meaning of science.
Thus hearing professors (until to this point I always consideres them as the „spearhead of intelligence“) speaking in a mean way about the humanities and socials sciences, not considering them as „real“ science at all, lead to the first disappointments early during my studies. Over the years hearing from most of the students that they study physics because of the good jobb opportunities lead to more disappointments.

Since I was a devoted acolyte I must not go in detail why I became successful within this „reference frame“ named as science/physics. I’ve been, and to a lesser degree this is still the case, a rolemodel for all these neo-liberal politicians. Coming from a poor family, studying something that is „important“ and becoming successful through „hard and devoted work“.
I was totally aware of that and did not held back with my belief that this is true. Now I know that I’ve been very cruel to all the people who haven’t been that fortunate as I was (especially with respect to the topic they studied). At this time everything seemed OK with my behaviour.

However, in 2004 my world broke apart – totally. But the foundation still was intact – my belief in science. Everything else I had to build up from scratch.
The catalyst for this event was the break-up with my then girlfriend. Since my mind was already shattered because of this it was kind of „silent“ enough to make me realize that everything in my life just does not „add up“. So I started to talk. About my feelings, about social topics, human relationships, economic topics, other (scientific) topics beside physics or technology etc.
And I started to accumulate knowledge within these new (to me) topics. This was the time when I started visiting seminars in politics and sociology.

And again science helped me – getting my world together again. A new world, a world in which I became a different, maybe better, person with totally changed views on quite a lot of important topics with respect to social interaction. This was a long process which still (and never will be) finished.

This was also the time when my subconsciousness became aware of the religion of science, slowly and just in small pieces making it tangible for my
consciousness.
And this was the time when my consciousness became very well aware of the business around science. Even more so during the time I worked for my
dissertation.
Both of these I strongly reject because these are unscientific.

– – – – – –

The Business of Science

I tried to explain why science is so important to me in the first section.

Naturally this first section already had to go a little bit into other the topics I will eventually describe/discuss in detail below.

This section now shall cover what I mean with „the business of science“.
It will be a rather short section and will not have any further meaning for the later topics but it is important to point out the differences between the business OF science and the business AROUND science. Still the original meaning of science applies of not said otherwise.

The most important business of science is of course what I said above: helping to understand the universe and to propel humanity. This includes research but is not limited to it. It includes also the presentation of research results (in a reasonable way) and teaching of the scientific methods and the necessary knowledge to students.
The first of this is kind of obvious since „secret-science“ doesn’t help humanity. Additionally, research at a university usually is done with taxpayer money and the public should be informed about what has been done with it’s money. The latter is important to continue with science in the future.

Presenting research results is for some scientific fields more important than for others since some sciences extend more into the „everyday life“ (e.g.
medicine, didactics etc.).

The „taxpayer money argument“ leads to another important business of science. To give advice for general decisions which will influence society. This includes political decisions but is not limited to it. On the other hand, if Herbert Read’s opinion about the „politics of the unpolitical“ is reasonably extended to the „topic of science“ all major decisions in this area are political.
This is something I would agree in.

I think I have to extend this a little bit because one big issue in the next section is also covered within this „giving advice“. In my opinion public research/science should be covered in general by some kind of „money for science/research“ without conditions. It shouldn’t be the case that a researcher/student has to beg even for tweezers because the lab he or she is working in get’s not enough funding.
Nowadays each tiny project must apply for funding and compete with others. This is a tremendous waste of ressources (but this will be covered in the next section) and in the end the taxpayer will cover the costs anyway!

However, not all (resonable) big projects can get money. Therefore such projects must be evaluated and the best project should get the money. Usually just scientists are able to evaluate other scientific projects, therefore they should do it. What „best“ means is of course debatable and can be both a political or a scientific discussion.

All these businesses (beside research and teaching) should be kept to a reasonable minimum that the scientists can do science.

– – – – – – –

The Business around Science

Above I tried to describe what „science“ means to me and that scientists have to do some things due to something which maybe could be charactereized as „their duty to society“. As a famous german physicist stated it shortly after the catastrophy of the 2nd World War: It’s not an option that physicists become political we MUST be political.
This was also said with respect to the atomic age which just begun with all it implications of total annihilation of mankind.
That is in the sense of the above mentioned position of Read.

Whatsoever, as said above the original meaning of „science“ shifted in the past decades more and more to a meaning that just natural and physical sciences are consideres as „real“ sciene. This angers me and will be discussed more in detail in the next section.

Together with this shift in the meaning the business around science developed. To me it seems to be as if science nowadays must lead to immediate results. Even better if it leads to commercialisation of the idea in the not to long run.
Everything else is considered useless and not worth of funding (public and private).

Since I didn’t researched this with the proper methods I want to give some examples what I mean with the business around science. These are mostly my own observations. From here on the word „science“ is meant in it’s new meaning.

For most science students the main motivation to study their topic is not curiosity but „to get a good jobb“. I think this is a terrible motivator because
you can’t be really good in something if you are not passionate about it. Of course this again is the expression of some others dogmata of the modern western society which shall not be discussed here.

Especially physics students (but this applies at least to most of these students according to my observations) are also quite arrogant towards everything which is not „real“ science.

Since professors have to „fight“ for there money most of them are almost always very occupied with applications for funding. This gives them much less time for good research. I know TWO professors who spend at least some time in the lab.

This might be less the case for more theoretical research areas, but these usually don’t need so much funding. On the other hand all of the professors I
know are working often until late at night just to get these applications in order. Since a day just has so many hours the professors can’t spend enough time with there students.
To me it seems to be as if some professors even see the students as too much of a burden. Hence the „outsourcing“ of these tasks (like teaching or supervising) to postdocs and PhD-students.

According to a friend who is a associate professor „being in a committee“ is much better for the scientific career than teaching.

Everything must be good looking in statistics. This leads to more seminars (even though the existing ones are quite often not good visited or the students just go there because they have to).

Also the flood of really bad publications (both papers and conference contributions) fit into this.
Around the topic of „publications/papers“ the bad business of Elsevier and other companies which distribute scientific papers should be mentioned.
The details of this are described elsewhere. A good starting point might be the article „The price of information„.

Since the tasks of a professor are nowadays more kind of bureaucratic quite a lot of them shouldn’t be considered anymore as the „spearhead of intelligence“.
This includes their research.

Three question (instead of direct examples) to finish this.

All this fuss around patents is another business around science. How can it be that the „fruits“ of public funded research is NOT for the benefit of the whole society?

How can it be that teaching in the laboratory (incl. own experiments) – the best (and I would even say the most efficient) way to teach science students – is more and more slashed because it is expensive and doesn’t contribute much to the statistics?
Even the students moan about it but not because it is very time consuming or hard but it doesn’t give many credit points according to the invested time.

And last but definitely not least: how can it be that applications for money for expensive equipment need several years to be written? And not because of the „hard science“ involved but because of „political issues“.
And how can it be that such applications need the constant attention of the scientists but in the end just a very short section of the application is actually relevant with respect to the research intended with the instrument in question?

I could go on quite a while with more examples but I will stop it here. I hope the examples itself are obvious enough not to be in the original meaning of
science.

In close connection to these businesses around science is that science became a religion (which is also just another business around science). This will be
discussed in the next section.

– – – – – – –

Science as Religion

In this sction the word „science“ is meant again with the new meaning (except stated otherwise).

Why science is a religion has been discussed by Mary Midgley (and maybe others I’m not aware of) and this is not the place to repeat her very good arguments. But for the sake of clarity I have to repeat at least some of the things she wrote.

It is important to distinguish between „faith in something“ and „religion“.
Midgley presents the key points how to distinguish a religion from faith. Faith is something which she argues is something very important even in science.
I agree with her. We all believe in something. For the people I keep company with it is usually not a being with supreme powers, but almost all believe e.g. in democracy or in mankind. We don’t have any proof that this faith is justified, actually we have a lot of examples that this faith is quite unjustified, but still we believe in it. Otherwise I guess we wouldn’t function in this society.

When it comes to science (new meaning!) I hope I could describe that I’ve been a devoted worshipper in the past. This was certainly not for the better of me but I didn’t realise this at that time. Especially was this attitude totally contrary to what I strongly believe about religion (with all the evidence one actually could say „what I know“ instead of „what I believe“).

I think EACH kind of religion is bad – if it is christianity, science, the cult of leadership etc. Beside the obvious facts the most important reason to me is,
that religion always is accompanied by unquestioned dogmatism.

Dogmata per se must not necessarily be something bad. Actually they can be something good. For example do I have the dogma that spanking a child for disobedience is an unappropriate response by the parents and not at all included in my repertoire how the upbringing of my child should be.
This sounds logic and moraly totally ok, doesn’t it. But just look two generations back and it was logic and morally totally ok to spank the child. Actually in germany the law that parents have the right to spank their child was not abandoned before the year 2000. Despite the fact that each human has the right not to be harmed (except extremely extraordinary circumstances) was established many decades before. And even this was just done after almost 30 years of lobbying of the child protection agency (Kinderschutzbund).

Another examples is my dogma not to have any sympathy or understanding regarding nazis and their ideas whatsoever. I’ve really tried it, but I couldn’t. I became physically sick and was disgusted of myself just by trying. Sounds logic, doesn’t it? (The dogma, not that I become sick of trying to understand nazis.)

Nonetheless I have another dogma which lead to that I always fought, and will do so in the future, for the civil right (of the nazis) of freedom of thought and speech (which doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t dispute it). Just like Voltaire.
Sounds also logic, doesn’t it? But I have the feeling that it is kind of contrary to the first dogma. Why protecting humans and ideas that want to destroy me and my ideas?

In addition comes that both of these [dgomata] can’t be understood in different kind of social habitats. Whereas the social habitat for not understanding the last dogma is much bigger than for the first – and alarmingly big under the so called „intelligentsia“.

I apologize (even though I’m not sorry – another dogma: don’t be sorry for the things you believe in) that I got carried away a little bit with these two
examples. These shall serve for dogmata which usually are not consider as such by most people.

In the last couple of months I tried to figure out my dogmata and I questioned all of the ones I found. Some I found as not abandonable (e.g. spanking my son), some I don’t desire to abandon (the nazi thing), and some dogmata which have been central for me and my lifestyle I could figure out as useless, even harmful to me, and I abandoned them (or I’m on my way abandoning them).

The key point is: dogmata MUST ALWAYS be questioned. Just as Bertrand Russell already told us half a century ago. Because something which morally is considered as good might actually be bad. Usually history goes this path, but it takes a while, often it is in the „reverse-mode“ (as for the time being unfortunately) and I don’t live that long.

I hope that one can extract from the few sentences i wrote my point of view that UNQUESTIONED dogmatism is something bad (which is by the way just another dogma). Beside the things I said above it (very effectively) prevents people from learning and exploring (the universe). And Religion (in contrast to faith) does not function without dogmatism.

And here we have the connection between the first and the last section. Science (in the original meaning) and Religion are two things which do absolutely not go together.

In contrast to science and faith which I consider as complementary.

In addition comes that I strongly believe in individuality (while I still stress out how important social/societal duties are).
And religion is everything BUT individuality. In contrast to faith again which can be very individual.

And all this is the reason why I’m so mad about science and the scienists. It became a religion and the scientists are very happy about this (without knowing it) because it gives them power. As all religions does to the altar boys and priests – and power is something almost everybody likes.
This power „thing“ is something I’ve been aware of all the time – I guess it even was a motivator for me going into science. Something I’m not very proud of (now).

This is one reason why I can’t stay in such close connection with science (new meaning) as I have been in the past and as I’m now. Together with other reasons all this contradiction ate me up and made me sick to the point that I stopped functioning in this context.

To finish all of this I like to state, that it is very hard to question myself.
But some years ago – 2004/2005 – I realized in a different, more narrow context that not doing so means deadlock. Something to avoid under all circumstances because it means death.
Advance – as the opposite of deadlock – on the other hand means to enjoy life and myself. The reson why I’m so eager to learn and to improve myself; the reason why science in the original meaning is so important to me.

Ich sage ja, dass ich Anarchist im kropotkinschen Sinne bin. Um dann manchmal gleich noch mit anzufuegen, dass ich kein Anhaenger der Schule des kommunistischen Anarchismus bin. (Eine kurze Anmerkung an dieser Stelle: die deutsche Wikipedia ist mindestens bei diesem Thema beschaemend!)

Wenn ich insb. Letzteres sage, macht das auf mich immer den Eindruck, als ob es da miteinander konkurrierende „Weltmodelle“ gibt. Das stimmt so zwar durchaus aber wie bereits Voline zusammen mit anderen schrieb:

To maintain that anarchism is only a theory of classes is to limit it to a single viewpoint. Anarchism is more complex and pluralistic, like life itself.

Es gibt aber ein paar Hauptaspekte, die in diesem weblog bereits øfter zur Sprache kamen.
Oder anders:

Its class element is above all its means of fighting for liberation; its humanitarian character is its ethical aspect, the foundation of society; its individualism is the goal of mankind.

Wenn man denn wollte, kønnte man als die drei „grøszten Strømungen“ kommunistischen Anarchismus, Anarchosyndikalismus und individualistischen Anarchismus ansehen.

Ich selber sehe dies aber eher so wie auch Sébastien Faure das ausdrueckt:

[…] these currents were not contradictory but complementary, each having a role within anarchism: anarcho-syndicalism as the strength of the mass organisations and the best way for the practice of anarchism; libertarian communism as a proposed future society based on the distribution of the fruits of labour according to the needs of each one; anarcho-individualism as a negation of oppression and affirming the individual right to development of the individual, seeking to please them in every way.

Man kønnte es auch so ausdruecken, wie Fred Woodworth es tut, als Anarchismus ohne Adjektive:

I have no prefix or adjective for my anarchism. I think syndicalism can work, as can free-market anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, even anarcho-hermits, depending on the situation.

Um aber bei dem anschaulichen Bild der Schulen zu bleiben, so weisz ich doch, was ich NICHT vertrete:
– Extremen individualistischen Anarchismus,
– Insurrektionalismus insofern er die gewalttaetigen Auswuechse der „Propaganda der Tat“ des spaeten 19. und des fruehen 20. Jahrhunderts bedeutet.
– Anarchokapitalismus, aus naheliegenden Gruenden. Meiner Meinung nach wird zu Recht diskutiert,ob es sich hierbei ueberhaupt um Anarchismus handelt, oder ob die Vertreter nicht einfach nur gierige Menschenfeinde, also Arschløcher, sind.
– Paläolibertarismus, weil diese Ideologie meiner Meinung nach nicht weit von der der Nazis ist. Im Wesentlichen also nichts mit (nicht nur meinen) anarchistischen Idealen zu tun hat.
– Und i.A. mag ich von eigentlich jeder Schule so ein paar Aspekte nicht.

Aber das ist ja das Schøne am Anarchistendasein. Man kann sich die Kirschen herauspicken — und danach handeln.

… das sage ich ja manchmal, wenn es passt.

Deswegen lese ich ja auch immer „so Zeuch“. Deswegen handle ich manchmal anders als es meinen unmittelbaren Begehrlichkeiten entsprechen wuerde.

Oder wie Dietmar es in „Zuflucht des Gøttlichen“ so viel schøener ausdrueckt:

Menschen sind Menschen, weil sie Gründe für ihre Sätze und Handlungen angeben (können) […].

Anarchists contribute to an anti-authoritarian push, which challenges all abstract power on a fundamental level, striving for truly egalitarian relationships and promoting communities based upon mutual aid.

Im grøszeren Zusammenhang geht es um den von mir nicht unterstuetzten Anarcho-Primitivismus. Aber ich finde es dennoch wichtig dies mal so explizit zu sagen. Als Gegenentwurf zur typischen „Anarchie = Chaos“-Propaganda.

Na DAS ist doch mal ein feiner Titel.

So geklaut aus Bob Blacks Artikel „The Abolition of Work„.

Ich bin kein Vertreter der Schule des Anarcho-Primitivismus. Allein schon, weil

aus kulturgeschichtlicher Perspektive […] leicht zu belegen [ist,] […] [dass] die größten Kreativitätsschübe […] fast immer in Städten statt[fanden] […].

Verglichen mit „den groszen Geistern“ kann Bob Black weder gut (oder wirklich ueberzeugend) argumentieren, noch wunderschøn mit Sprache umgehen. Und auch seine gewaehlten Beispiele hinken sehr, auch wenn er darauf besteht, dass dies nicht wørtlich genommen werden sollte.

Dennoch stimme ich so sehr mit seinen Thesen ueberein, dass ich nicht umhin komme, umfangreich zu zitieren. Wie immer sind alle Hervorhebungen von mir, soweit nicht anders angegeben.

Weil’s so schøn ist zu lesen nochmal dies:

No one should ever work.

denn …

Doubtless we all need a lot more time for sheer sloth and slack than we ever enjoy now […]

Oder etwas mehr im Kontext:

Liberals say we should end employment discrimination. I say we should end employment.

Er wagt es dies wieder und wieder zu sagen … Chapeau!

Auch so, wie ich es auch schon seit Jahren ausdruecke:

Conservatives support right-to-work laws. […] I support the right to be lazy.

Die Wurzel des Problems liegt (wie so oft) in der Ideologie … ungeachtet welcher Ideologie.

[…] all the ideologues […] advocate work. […] Unions and management agree that we ought to sell the time of our lives in exchange for survival […]. Marxists think we should be bossed by bureaucrats. Libertarians think we should be bossed by businessmen. Feminists don’t care which form bossing takes so long as the bosses are women. […]

Denn …

[…] none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working.

Aber …

The alternative to work isn’t just idleness. […] [I am not] promoting the managed time-disciplined safety-valve called „leisure“ […]Leisure is nonwork for the sake of work. Leisure is the time spent recovering from work and in the frenzied but hopeless attempt to forget about work.

[…]

The only thing „free“ about so-called free time is that it doesn’t cost the boss anything. Free time is mostly devoted to getting ready for work, going to work, returning from work, and recovering from work. Free time is a euphemism for the peculiar way labor as a factor of production not only transports itself at its own expense to and from the workplace but assumes primary responsibility for its own maintenance and repair. Coal and steel don’t do that. Lathes and typewriters don’t do that. But workers do.

Wichtig! Das hier Geschriebene møge sich jeder mal kurz durch den Kopf gehen lassen.

Im Artikel folgt dann unter welcher Definition von Arbeit der Titel dieses Beitrages zu verstehen ist:

My minimum definition of work is *forced* *labor* [sic!], that is, compulsory production. […] Work is production enforced by economic or political means […]. But not all creation is work. Work is never done for its own sake, it’s done on account of some product or output that the worker (or, more often, somebody else) gets out of it.

Im Groszen und Ganzen denke ich, dass meine Leserschaft da mit geht. Im Artikel von Bob Black steht dann weiter:

[…] most workers experience on the job […] [a] sum of assorted indignities which can be denominated as „discipline.“ [sic!] […] surveillance, rotework, imposed work tempos, production quotas, punching -in and -out, etc. Discipline is what the factory and the office and the store share with the prison and the school and the mental hospital. It is something historically original and horrible.

Irgendwie finde ich diesen Vergleich gruselig. Das ist naemlich einfach viel zu nahe an der Realitaet. Oder vermutlich doch eher an der Illusion die ich vom „selbstbestimmten Arbeiten“ habe. Aber auch dies drueckt Black viel direkter aus:

Work makes a mockery of freedom. […]

A worker is a par-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called „insubordination,“ [sic!] just as if a worker is a naughty child […].

[This] demeaning system of domination […] rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it’s not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or — better still — industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are „free“ is lying or stupid.

Dann folgert er meiner Meinung nach vøllig zu Recht:

Work is a much better explanation for the creeping cretinization all around us than even such significant moronizing mechanisms as television and education.

Kurzer Einschub: wie das bzgl. der „education“ einzuordnen ist, ist zu lang um dies hier zu erørtern. Es gibt mittlerweile deutlich bessere Konzepte als die „klassische Schule“ (vor allem hier in Skandinavien). Ich denke aber, dass meine Leserschaft wiederum einig mit mir ist, dass der grøszte Teil der (nicht nur) øffentlichen Schulen eigtl. nur zur Aufbewahrung der Kinder und zum Eintrichtern von (meist wenig nuetzlichem) Wissen ist.
Einschub zu Ende.

Weiter zur „creeping cretinization all around us“ und warum „Arbeit“ den grøszten Anteil daran traegt.

People who are regimented all their lives, […] are habituated to heirarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is so atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally grounded phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into the families *they* [sic!] start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than one, and into politics, culture and everything else.

Eigentlich sind dies doch alles sehr einfache, durchaus klare und naheliegende Ansichten auf ein Thema, welches uns tagein, tagaus immerzu beschaeftigt. Warum kommen wir da eigtl. nicht selber drauf?

We are so close to the world of work that we can’t see what it does to us.

Deswegen schlaegt Black vor, andere Gesellschaften bzw. die Historie dazu zu betrachten. Dabei ist nicht zu vergessen, wie er „Arbeit“ weiter oben definiert.

Both Plato and Xenophon attribute to Socrates and obviously share with him an awareness of the destructive effects of work on the worker as a citizen and a human being. Herodotus identified contempt for work as an attribute of the classical Greeks at the zenith of their culture. […]

Our ancestors, even as late as the eighteenth century […] [had a] religious devotion to „St. Monday“ — thus establishing a *de* *facto* [six!] five-day week 150-200 years before its legal consecration — [That] was the despair of the earliest factory owners. […]

[…] a fourth of the French peasants‘ calendar was devoted to Sundays and holidays, and Chayanov’s figures from villages in Czarist Russia […] likewise show a fourth or fifth of peasants‘ days devoted to repose.

Und dann zurueck der Weg in die Gegenwart:

Controlling for productivity, we are obviously far behind these backward societies. The exploited *muzhiks* [sic!] would wonder why any of us are working at all. So should we.

Und selbst so ein beinharter Kapitalist (und „Erfinder“ der „unsichtbaren Hand des Marktes„) wie …

[…] Adam Smith in *The* *Wealth* *of* *Nations* [sic!], for all his enthusiasm for the market and the division of labor, was more alert to (and more honest about) the seamy side of work than Ayn Rand [Anm.: da war sie wieder! Diese verbitterte Frau mit ihren menschenfressenden „Ideen“.) or the Chicago economists [Anm.: und da sind auch ihre Schueler] or any of Smith’s modern epigones.

Eine der „duesteren“ Seite der Arbeit ist:

Work is hazardous to your health […]. In fact, work is mass murder or genocide.

Dann laeszt er sich ein bisschen zu Krankheiten aus, die sich direkt/indirekt auf Arbeit zurueckfuehren lassen um dann diesen kurzen Exkurs dazu abzuschliesen mit:

What the statistics don’t show is that tens of millions of people have heir lifespans shortened by work — which is all that homicide means, after all.

Zurueck zum eigentlichen Thema.

Many workers are fed up with work.

Aber hilft das? Offensichtlich nicht:

And yet the prevalent feeling, universal among bosses and their agents and also widespread among workers themselves is that work itself is inevitable and necessary.

Was kønnte man dagegen tun?

I disagree. [Anm.: bzgl. „work itself is inevitable and necessary.“] It is now possible to abolish work and replace it, insofar as it serves useful purposes, with a multitude of new kinds of free activities. […] on the quantitative side, we have to cut down massively on the amount of work being done. At present most work is useless or worse and we should simply get rid of it. On the other hand […] we have to take what useful work remains and transform it into a pleasing variety of game-like and craft-like pastimes, indistinguishable from other pleasurable pastimes, except that they happen to yield useful end-products. […] Then all the artificial barriers of power and property could come down. Creation could become recreation. And we could all stop being afraid of each other.

Dazu dann ein paar unterstuetzende Argumente.

Twenty years ago, […] [it was] estimated that just five percent of the work then being done […] would satisfy our minimal needs for food, clothing, and shelter. […] most work serves the unproductive purposes of commerce or social control. Right off the bat we can liberate tens of millions of salesmen, soldiers, managers, cops, stockbrokers, clergymen, bankers, lawyers, teachers, landlords, security guards, ad-men and everyone who works for them. […]

Forty percent of the workforce are white-collar workers, most of whom have some of the most tedious and idiotic jobs ever concocted. Entire industries, insurance and banking and real estate for instance, consist of nothing but useless paper-shuffling. […]

Dies fuehrt natuerlich zu einem in diesem Weblog bereits mehrfach erwaehntem Resultat:

Because work is unnecessary except to those whose power it secures, workers are shifted from relatively useful to relatively useless occupations as a measure to assure public order. Anything is better than nothing. That’s why you can’t go home just because you finish early. They want your *time* [sic!], enough of it to make you theirs, even if they have no use for most of it. Otherwise why hasn’t the average work week gone down by more than a few minutes in the past fifty years?

Aber weiter mit den unterstuetzenden Argumenten:

Next we can take a meat-cleaver to production work itself. No more war production, nuclear power, junk food, feminine hygiene deodorant — and above all, no more auto industry to speak of. […] Already, without even trying, we’ve virtually solved the energy crisis, the environmental crisis and assorted other insoluble social problems.

Finally, we must do away with far and away the largest occupation, the one with the longest hours, the lowest pay and some of the most tedious tasks around. I refer to *housewives* [sic!] doing housework and child-rearing. By abolishing wage-labor and achieving full unemployment we undermine the sexual division of labor.

Und dann ist natuerlich der technische Fortschritt nicht zu vergessen:

[…] the possibility of cutting way down on the little work that remains by automating and cybernizing it. All the scientists and engineers and technicians freed from bothering with war research and planned obsolescence would have a good time devising means to eliminate fatigue and tedium and danger from activities like mining. Undoubtedly they’ll find other projects to amuse themselves with.

Und dass der Text schon etwas aelter ist erkennt man bspw. an diesem (aus heutiger Sicht) amuesante Kommentar … tihihi:

Perhaps they’ll set up world-wide all-inclusive multi-media communications systems […].

Es ist genug fuer heute. Ich møchte mit dem folgenden, auszerst positiv in die Zukunft schauenden Zitat diesen Artikel beenden:

The reinvention of daily life means marching off the edge of our maps.

No one should ever work. Workers of the world… *relax*!

Im Beitrag „Stem Cell Research: An Approach To Bioethics Based On Scientific Naturalism“ bin ich auf ein paar feine Saetze gestoszen, die zu einigen der in diesem Weblog behandelten Themen passen.

Das Zitierte bezieht sich zwar immer auf Stammzellenforschung, aber ich møchte es gern in einen grøszeren Zusammenhang gesehen haben. Deswegen kuerze ich alles diesbezeuglich.

Beim lesen kønnt ihr, meine lieben Leserinnen und Leser ja bspw. an die „Informationsapokalypse“ oder „nicht-vorhandene-Arbeit“ denken.

Auf geht’s:

[…] it is important to acknowledge that the dispute […] is difficult to resolve in part because it raises novel questions.

Neue Fragen deswegen, weil …

Our ancestors did not address ethical quandaries [in Verbindung zu bspw. obigen Problemstellungen] […] for the obvious reason that such [achievements were] not a possibility for them.

All dies ist …

[…] of recent origin.

Das Obige ist deswegen so wichtig anzuerkennen, …

[…] because many find uncertainty and doubt about moral questions deeply disquieting and troubling.

Und leider ist es immer …

[…] a temptation to remove such doubts through an unreflective and dogmatic application of norms and principles that may be widely accepted but which were developed to address different situations.

Aber wie wir alle so schøn wissen (und leider auch so oft vergessen)

Dogma is not very helpful in any human endeavor.

Seit Popper sollten wir wissen, dass …

In science, hypotheses are continually tested and then modified or rejected as a result of experimental evidence.

Das laeszt sich natuerlich nicht 1:1 auf ethische Fragen anwenden, aber …

[…] our moral judgments should continually be tested for adequacy by considering their practical implications.

Eine interessante Methode wie dies zu bewerkstelligen waere und die ich ungefaehr so anwende (ohne dass ich davon wusste) verlangt ein laengeres Zitat.

[…] the method of reflective equilibrium. This approach is also referred to as the coherence model of justification. […] the method seeks to test our initial moral judgments by detailing and examining the consequences of adhering to these judgments. One then tries to systematize the judgments and their consequences in a set of general moral principles that can explain and account for these judgments. These principles are themselves tested against our background theories, both moral and nonmoral. Judgments and principles that cannot be rendered consistent with each other and our background theories will need to be modified or discarded. Moreover, in this method, the testing and process of justification works in the other direction as well, that is, theories and principles are evaluated against our considered moral judgments to determine whether our more general commitments may require adjustments (hence the derivation of the term “reflective equilibrium”).

Toll wa! So einfach kønnte das alles sein, wenn es nicht so verdammt schwer waere ueber seinen eigenen Schattten zu huepfen. … Deswegen liebe Leserinnen und Leser bitte ich mal wieder um: Kritik, denn …

this method […] has the virtue of forcing us to examine critically many of our moral beliefs by considering their consequences and their consistency with our other beliefs.

Deswegen: Immer her mit den neuen Fragen!

Mein diesjaehriger Geburtstagsweblogeintrag ist wieder etwas Wichtiges, was mir sehr am Herzen liegt.

Lucien van der Walt und Michael Schmidt argumentieren, dass …

The anarchists did not […] identify freedom with the right of everybody to do exactly what one pleased but with a social order in which collective effort and responsibilities – that is to say, obligations – would provide the material basis and social nexus in which individual freedom could exist.

Und dann weiter.:

genuine freedom and individuality could only exist in a free society […]

Im Kontrast also zu …

misanthropic bourgeois individualism

basiert Anarchy auf …

a deep love of freedom, understood as a social product, a deep respect for human rights, a profound celebration of humankind and its potential and a commitment to a form of society where a ‚true individuality‘ was irrevocably linked to ‚the highest communist socieability'“

Auch wenn ich kein Anhaenger der Schule des Anarcho-Kommunismus bin, so stimme ich dem voll zu. Von mir selber ausgehend natuerlich.