Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 22:39:58 +0100
Subject: M-G: Brazen cheek and idle egos


Mark J, for some reason known only to himself and his cronies, makes public
the following non-public exchange with Zeynep on M-I:

>You are not a good moderator. You do not ensure the proper conduct of
>debates.

Misunderstanding. The list is not a meeting. It's an indirect discussion
forum where the rules are very clear. 3 posts a day and no threats or
unproven libels,  or racist or sexist slander.  The moderators are not
there to chair debates, but to remind participants of the rules of order
and if necessary enforce them.


>You are weak when you should be firm, and over-react when you
>ought to be sensible.

Difference of opinion. (That most heinous of crimes for a Stalinist. Funny
how many of Stalin's temporary buddies sorry comrades-in-arms sorry
bootlickers sorry snitches and traitors ended up having differences of
opinion with him and lost their lives for it.) Given her basic views, I
think Zeynep has been both firm and sensible. Every position she has taken
has been clear in relation to the rules offered to subscribers at the
start, and consistent in relation to her own explicit positions. What more
could we ask of the setup as it is now? Mark personalizes quite
inadmissibly here. He's quarrelling with the rules and blaming Zeynep for
it.

>It is because we have no confidence in you and do
>not respect your work as a moderator, amongst other reasons, that we
>have created an alternative list.

The reason is you can't tolerate disagreement (you'll be at each others'
throats before two weeks are up) and you wouldn't know what the proper
conduct of a debate was anyway -- this is a general "you". Mark himself is
schizophrenic here and is capable of real and open discussion when he
doesn't feel politically threatened. But show me the Stalinist who doesn't
feel politically threatened -- Uncle Joe himself made political paranoia
spilling over into all spheres of life into an art form.

Note again the personalized blame -- they have no confidence in Zeynep, so
it's her fault they're setting up their own little kraal. The great
Stalinist trek (or should that be dreck?!) is under way and they get to
make a circle of waggons to defend themselves against all the ghoulies and
ghosties and longlegged beasties outside!


>But it is not true to say that I do not like you. I do not even know
>you, and am happy to leave it like that.

This is madness. If there's one person on the list not a Trot who I'm proud
to know -- even at an electronic remove and with disagreements in style and
on a couple of fundamentals -- it's Zeynep. If you cold-shoulder Zeynep who
the hell will you warm to? Your national bourgeois allies?


>If you want to make catty little remarks, be sure you know how to
>justify them.

This is sexist, and as far as Zeynep is concerned quite off the mark. In
fact off hand I can't think of any woman who's posted to any of the lists
who's been guilty of making catty remarks (Malgosia shoots poisonous barbs
at times, but "catty"?). Compared to the other Maoists, for instance, Gina
was/is a marvel of forthright political contribution.

>Answer my postings properly. Do not resort to ad hominem
>methods.

This is cheek of the highest order. Nothing can match the sheer brazen
chutzpah of Lousi >< P, of course, but this comes close. If Louis deserves
a 9.9, Mark must get at least a 9.7 for this one. Of course, being the
casuist he is (though with a name like that he'd hardly be a Jesuit) he'd
just say his posts are not ad hominem -- they're ad mulierem! The wonders
of education.


>If you find the work load taxing, do not invite list-members to post
>less in the insulting terms in which you do. Resign, and let someone
>else do the job.

Another little sign that what they're really after is a coup to hi-jack the
list. With Zeynep throwing up her hands in disgust at the insulting
provocations this crew has been throwing at her, they could maybe get one
of their own in as moderator, forming a bloc with Louis G and isolating Jon
F so he'd be only too willing to leave as well. It's a bit like the Supreme
Court in a way, isn't it?

I really think all of the recent nastiness has been orchestrated by this
lot with a view to hounding political opponents out of the list so they'd
have a ready-made forum for their own bigoted hand-me-down notions of
Socialism in One Country, bureaucratic centralism, the Two-Stage Theory of
Revolution and Class Collaboration. Cuckoos! Parasites!


And finally a word to Zeynep about egos. Egos are political things. To say
that the real problem is leisured egos is no good without a political
characterization of the lines at issue. At the very least it needs a
characterization of the kind of organization that would permit and in some
cases encourage this kind of behaviour towards potential allies in the
struggle. Stalin himself used this sort of method with political motivation
against class allies that he saw as political enemies. His ego might have
fuelled the intensity of the campaigns, but it certainly didn't determine
the political direction of the policies in whose name the character
assassinations were carried out (real assassinations too) or the political
direction of the attacks. These were dictated by the social interests of
the counter-revolutionary bureaucracy that usurped power in the world's
first workers' state.

With better schooling, better organization and a higher level of
intervention in the real tasks of the working class all this "personal"
garbage will be reduced to much less distracting dimensions.

Actually, I'm waiting for a report from Rahul on his first few months in
Turkey as a case in point!

Cheers,

Hugh


PS Doug H puts the personal psychological angle in a much more vulgar
fashion than Zeynep (of course), arguing with Jerry L who states very
clearly that the apparent ego clashes result from deep political divisions.
And Doug ends up with Economist-speak when he glorifies the past ("There
was a time when the left attracted some of the sharpest minds in the world,
even if the capitalists and their apologists had all the resources."),
which is safely out of reach and so can be praised without commitment -- I
wonder how safely past the Vietnam war is by the way?! -- and then disses
the present "Now the left attracts the mediocre and the insane." Does he
include himself in the past or the present, I wonder? And then The
Economist finishes his piece for him: "It's very very sad." Not a dry eye
in the boardroom.








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