Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 18:10:01 +0000
Subject: M-G: (Fwd) Re: M-I: Re: fiascos. YES to louis g


------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From:          "Karl Carlile" <joseph-AT-indigo.ie>
To:            marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Date:          Tue, 8 Apr 1997 21:08:56 +0000
Subject:       Re: M-I: Re: fiascos. YES to louis g
Priority:      urgent
Reply-to:      marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU

A KARL CARLILE MESSAGE

KARL: I tend to share Zeynep's view that if certain subscribers
dont like the postings of certain other subscribers they are free to ignore
them or even filter them out. However I would add that they are also 
free to walk away form the listst too. It is not as if they are 
obliged to be subscribers.

I also wish to express my total opposition to the once again
sinister suggestion on these mailing lists which is essentially
calls for increased censorship on the marxism mailing lists. 

Ultimately the quality of postings on the marxism mailing lists is a
function of the theoretical and political quality of  its
subscribers. No amount of moderation or censorship can serve as a
substitute for any lack of quality. It is only through seeking to
raise the level of discussion that the conditions for better quality
marxism lists can be established. However no one can make this happen
and especially not by censorship. At most they can only seek to exert
a positive influence on the lists. The fact is that the state of
discussion on these lists is a reflection of the state of the radical
left both theoretically and ultimately politically. If the quality of
the lists is to be transformed then the quality of the radical left
must be correspondingly transformed. 

To say that the state of the lists are driving valuable people away
>from them is not a valid argument. Surely if these "valuable" people
are committed they will join these lists in order to assist in their
development. In a sense if there are an abundance of people who can
help upgrade the quality of these lists then surely they should
participate in them. This is the way in which the lists can be
developed: not through censorship. If anything it is the failure of
such "valuable" people, if they exist, to participate that may be
assisting in the retardation of the development of the lists.  This
is a reflection of the poverty of their politics which then leads one
to question their alleged value. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ZEYEP: I agree with Carrol and Louis (G). I find it healthier for a mailing list to
have its subscribers filter out whatever they want to filter out. There is
no reason everyone has to read and/or respond to every thread and/or
contributor.

As for a closed list, if it works as the editorial board of a magazine
would, fine. It wouldn't serve the purpose of an open mailing list, but,
there is no "exclusion" clause in cyberspace. Any number of forums can
exist. I have a lot of suspicion that "academician" types would contribute
even to such a list. In any case, I don't see why other people's posts
should stop anyone from posting intelligently, if they wish to. 

As for the point of all Stalinists going off to other lists, I must say all
we can provide is a list in which everyone can post, provided they follow
the rules. That includes Stalinists. Such an environment, we do provide. If
it takes excluding a political current, this is not the list. The current
Leninlist members left amidst cries for expelling Andrew Austin, because of
remarks he made about Stalin. I don't see how capitulating to such petulant
behaviour makes for a non-sectarian environment. I also think many of the
calls for expulsion of other people are groundless.

Zeynep


>    (still in mehitabel mode) I have seen no better summing up of the
>essential parameters of any maillist than that of louis g copied
>below. i rather suspect that any maillist designed to keep out
>anyone's favorite junk poster will also be a dead list.
>
>    Carrol
>>
>>
>>
>> The truth is,  people "succeed" or "fail" in cyberspace for much the same
>> reasons they do in real life.    A mailing list,  regardless of how
>> carefully constructed or judiciously moderated,  is still,  after all,  only
>> a mailing list.    It exists for the exchange of ideas,  to meet new people,
>> and,  in the best of all worlds,  to unite the possibilities of cyberspace
>> with reality.
>>
>> Period.
>>
>> Marxism-international cannot collectively atone for all the warts and
>> idiocies exhibited by its individual members.   It cannot by itself animate
>> dysfunctional people or ideas,  ameliorate the pain of lost youth,  nor
>> render the mundane compelling.     It cannot,  sadly,  relieve us of the
>> tiresome obligation to think for ourselves or to take responsibility for our
>> mistakess.    Marxism-international is here precisely for the reasons
>> outlined in its prospectus.
>>
>> No more,  no less.
>>
>> It may well be that those who people our little corner of Spoons have
>> temporarily run out of ideas or the energy to exposit them,  or both.
>> And,  of course,  there are always the lurking demands of real life.    At
>> times like this,  yes, we do get more from those whose contributions run to
>> the rote, the mundane,  the rehearsed,  day-in,  day-out,  regardless of the
>> topic,  those for whom it is a question of too much time and too little
>> common sense.    So be it.   Nature abhors a vacuum,  does it not?
>>
>> I wish Lou Proyect well.   Same for Gary,  Scott and whoever.   It may well
>> be that a "closed" list (or at least one more closely moderated) will
>> provide them with a forum with which they can feel at home.   I must confess
>> to never having read Ginsberg,  Ellen Wood,  or *Monthly Review*.    Add
>> this to that ever - lengthening manifest of books,  magazines and people
>> that will never make my acqaintance,  to the detriment of both of us,  I am
>> sure.    I am not sure what a mailing list based on any of them would look
>> like.    Not much like ours,  I would assume.
>>
>> In the meantime,  I for one do not see much future in personalities or lists
>> or parties who count as one of their main tasks the speedy expulsion of
>> dissentient personalities or ideas.    I,  too,  am a believer in the
>> precepts governing Rousseau's General Will -- the good of the majority.
>> Individualism is an oligarchic doctrine.    Nevertheless,
>> marxism-international will continue as an open list with a minimal set of
>> rules that facilitate discussion along lines determined largely *by the
>> participants themselves*.    We will never exist merely to provide vicarious
>> satisfaction for those whose main focus is on their "enemies" on this or any
>> other list and whose main goal in politics is tje winning of  pyrrhic
>> "victories" over the ghosts of their former selves.
>>
>> Louis Godena,
>> moderator
>>
>>
>>
>>      --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



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

                                      




                          Yours etc.,
                                     Karl   


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

                                      




                          Yours etc.,
                                     Karl   


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