Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 08:46:38 +0100 (MET)
Subject: M-G: Re: M-I: cross-posting


Nick wrote;
>
>I don't think you should make assumptions, especially those implicit in the
above. To counterpose "grabbing
>people by the ass" with being concerned about garbage & cross-posting is a
mistake. I'm decidedly in favour of
>grabbing people, and using the available technology to promote Marxism &
organise workers. That is the root of
>my concern about cross-posting, etc. NOT a selfish consideration about my
on phone bill.

Good fine!
>
>I was encouraged to read MI in addition to MG, which implied to me that
there would be different material on
>it. The only difference I have noticed is the heavy-handedness of those you
referred to in your original post -
>the kind of behaviour I thought might have lapsed with the change in list
structure, and that I hoped to avoid.
>If that is the only benefit that accrues from subbing to both lists, then I
would prefer to stick to MG. BUT I
>don't want to miss anything!

Well, this is not entirely true. In fact the creation of these two
particular lists have a long story going back to the many contradictions of
human material on the earlier lists at Jefferson village connected to the
political line of some of the major tendencies claiming to be "marxists".

I will not go into all that but the one good thing about MI is the position
that Zeynep upheld of a list with a 3 posting limit to bring a little
disipline and a list which could provide people who do not have cheap access
a point where they would not have to download numerous letters which
involved a lot of flame wars.

And to say that MI and MG would have different material is basically wrong
too. Because in fact these two lists reflect both the human material
presently involved here and this is connected to the present ideolgical
state of the left in the workers movement. I mean not to much has changed
ideologically from the days of Lenin,Trotsky, Stalin, Mao and the Social
Democracy. The debates only reflect a discussion that has in fact been going
on in the workers movement since the beginning of this century.

. But workers on the whole don't have these freedoms. If we want to attract
working class activists
>into our discussions we have to find ways of making them accessible.

Now I agree with the above statement. So the question is how to find ways to
interact with a larger audience. Thus my letter about thinking "BIG". Of
course i am quite open to any purposals that would in fact make the above
goal a reality..

>I can see the idea of a restricted posting list. In that sense I am in
favour of such a thing. I thought that
>was the purpose of the digests. It appears I am mistaken. If we have to
have a list with limited posting
>rights, and one that is open, why not then have every message in MI copied
to MG? That way those of us who want
>all the details can have MG, and those who want conciseness can use MI.

Or the other way around! But the problem is still that a discussion in this
form is very difficult to hold with a three letter a day limit. And the
problem of costs are always going to be a problem. If we in the future have
15,000 preople on the list who write just one letter a day..
>
>Alternatively, it seems it is possible (by sending copies, rather than
originals, to the 'other' list) to
>ensure that people only receive one copy, even if they sub to both lists.
It does not seem to much to ask that
>we discipline ourselves to operate in such a way that reduces the costs /
time involved for each other.

Yes, maybe it is possible to filter double posts to addresses. This would be
a step forward. Is their anybody who has any ideas on this. Jay,s idea about
sending a copy did not work. I tried it and still got two copies..
>
>Besides which, Bob, in sniping at Richard worrying about his on-line costs,
have you considered how difficult
>it might be for a socialist working class activist in a less developed
country than Sweden to get access to the
>Internet? Richard, you & I might get hours of fun for only =A310 a month (or
equivalent), but I guess some people
>have to fork out considerably more for their access to MI - we should
strive to make it worth their while.

Sorrry if i sniped at Richard. But I get extremely worried when people start
talking about organisational solutions to a political discussion. In the
past this has had a history of using organisational methods to isolate
political opponents. The "Unity" list is a goood example of this. However I
am open to any discussions that will organisationally stop the double
postings without trying to make people believe that the ONLY solution is
unsubbing from one list in favor of another.

>Sending the same message over and over again doesn't necessarily win the
hearts and minds of the masses. It
>certainly won't encourage them to subscribe to MG if they're already
getting half the posts eight times over
>elsewhere, will it?

Well the last has to be in the context of both personal taste and political
line. I feel that if one has a firm position on a particular political
trend, that this implies sending basically the same political message time
and time again. Naturally it is connected to all kinds of topics and
tactics. But in fact as a Trotskyist i am afraid that not only do i find it
neccessary to repeat time and again and day after day the same things in one
way or another. Because the political opponents are time and again putting
forth what i believe is their rotten political lines time and again and
which has met so much in the terms of horror and defeats for the poor and
working class populations Internationally.

Unfortunately when it comes to the basics around Communist politics there is
not really that much which is new. Nor in fact the ideologies of our class
enemies. So repetition unfortunately we are going to have to live with until
the working class fills its historic roll or the planet blows up...

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki





     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---