Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 18:38:08 -0700
From: Lisa Rogers <eqwq.lrogers-AT-state.ut.us>
Subject:  long live marxism lists -Forwarded


Forwarded Mail received from: Lisa Rogers

      Date:  03/29/1996  01:37 pm  (Friday)  
      From:  Lisa Rogers
        To:  marx
   Subject:  long live marxism lists

I expect that Will, Doug and others will be relieved to know that on
this occasion Louis is not entirely correct.

It is true that I have proposed to Spoon that a new list be created,
but it certainly will not be required that all discussion will be
required to be "polite" or disallow "praxis" or be only "theory".  

In fact, my proposal said nothing specifically about "literature,
anthropology, history, economics etc" nor did I propose to exclude
"the bothersome presence of "vanguard" parties."  I would prefer that
all of us that want to talk to each other about marxian thought in
relation to all of these and many, many other things will have a
place to talk.

I have looked at every post on this list all this week, although
rather briefly for some of them, and I have taken note of every
request, demand, proposal, etc.

I have listened carefully to the list, to comods, to Spoon and to
discussion on list-proposals list.  I have ingested, digested, and
tried to come up with a reasonable response.  Yes, a real action, as
promised.  I wasn't sure earlier in the week if it would be
expulsions from this list or the creation of a new list which _does_
have expulsions.

Some people [including Spooners] are so committed to "openness" that
it seems that this type of forum must be maintained, i.e. no
exclusions, expulsions, unsubbing, blocking of posts, nothing at all
except talking. [Even though some of the talking is actually
extremely exclusionary in intent, or effect.]

At the same time, it is clear that if a list is "open" to anything no
matter what, it's "openness" can actually destroy the possibility of
discussion.  Extreme accusation and attack do close down the
opportunities of others to have useful discussion, express creative
ideas, explore new thoughts, etc.

So it came down to this question: 

1. keep this one "open" to everything and start a second list _with_
the statement and policy of blocking disruptive posters, or 

2. institute expulsions on this list and create a second list that is
"totally open".

If we can let go of our hatred of the notion of somebody "winning"
_this_ list, these two options look substantially similar.  Either
way, we get _a_ list that will DEFEND itself as a discussion forum,
and let also exist _a_ list for those who prefer "total openness".  

THIS IS NOT intended as an academic vs activist split, that would be
extraordinarily silly.

The unity/interplay of worker-intellectuals and academic-workers can
still go on, perhaps even on both lists.  That would not be a bad
thing!

But one list will be allowed to defend itself, while those who insist
on admitting anything and everything from any "group" or person or
whatever, can make what they can of the other list.

Thus, the list is splitting, not over the ridiculously false
dichotomy of worker vs university, but over the issue of blocking
some destructive posters vs being "totally open" to whatever might
choose to insert itself, no matter what.

Lisa
of Spoon