From: "David Bedggood" <d.bedggood-AT-auckland.ac.nz>
To: marxism-general-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 12:48:36 1200+
Subject: M-G: Spoon now a strategic drawing-room
CC: marxism-feminism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU


> Date:          Mon, 26 May 1997 01:43:48 +0200
> To:            marxism-general-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU,
>                marxism-feminism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
> From:          Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>
> Subject:       M-G: Re: Spoon now a strategic drawing-room
> Reply-to:      marxism-general-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU


Well Hugh if Bob choses to be a political hypocrite and use double 
standards not only is he unprincipled but he is tactically stupid 
because he hands the neo-stalinists himself on a platter. It isnt a 
matter of excusing  Bob's mistake because it was minor and anyway he 
has been known to admit errors, both are true, its about the 
political ramifications of  THIS particular error. 

Neither your rape analogy or Bob's veil analogy are fitting. Of 
course we defend on principle the right of men or women to dress as 
they like and not be subjected to rape, just as we defend the right 
of muslim women to oppose the veil. What Bob did was to shut up 
someone who dared to venture an opinion that Freud condoned child 
rape, by labelling her a "feminist ballbuster". Where is the 
principle there? 

Tactically, Bob gave the neo-stalinists the excuse, and or course  
it's not  a sufficient reason, to close him down, and then to close 
down all of us for the moment. If we are going to close ranks and win 
allies in a struggle to open up M-F we have to get agreement on 
principles for a start.
Dave.



> Dave B writes:
> 
> >Bob, I am not going to be told by you that I am in bed with these
> >people.  Before you blow you credibility totally you should think
> >again. You know I am opposed to a moderated list. You know I am
> >opposed to Cox's ban on you.
> 
> Well and good. I think Bob was wrong to make that charge.
> 
> But he continues:
> 
> >But I am also against you breaking your
> >own rules and politically labelling someone as as "feminist
> >ballbreaker" instead of having a political argument. The fact is
> >that in my opinion you did give Cox just the reason he was looking
> >for to get rid of you.
> 
> Now this might be true, but it's true in the same way that young women
> wearing short skirts and  otherwise dressed to kill give rapists just the
> provocation they're looking for to pounce. You're blaming the victim!
> That's why Bob hit back at you.
> 
> >So not only are you breaking your own
> >principles here but you are being tactically stupid offering
> >yourself as a victim to the neo-stalinists and their allies to line
> >up support for censoring M-F.
> 
> Now there's a democratic problem here. If a woman knows there are rapists
> around, should she dress for them or as she would like to dress herself??
> What is the point of arguing that an Iranian or Afghani woman is
> "tactically stupid" if she defies the rapists in power and shows her hair
> in public?
> 
> Ironically enough, Bob himself used exactly the same argument against the
> hunger-strikers in Turkey last summer. His line was that they were
> tactically stupid to weaken themselves by refusing food instead of
> organizing for a stronger revolutionary party.
> 
> And you yourself know that if repressive people with power want to get
> someone they'll stop at nothing to achieve their end, even if it means
> *inventing* a provocation (like the Gulf of Tonkin incident). The only way
> to stop them is to muster counter-force.
> 
> >You can't expect to win a serious fight
> >for an open, democratic list, when you refuse to acknowledge your own
> >mistakes.
> 
> 
> This is true, but Bob is quite capable of admitting mistakes. And let's get
> the present "mistake" into perspective. As I wrote before, Bob's words in
> context were hardly more than colourful. Certainly far less offensive than
> M-international moderator Louis Godena's use of "cocksucker" as a term of
> abuse. And we shouldn't forget that Bob likes to shit on the drawing room
> carpet from time to time, and elicits predictable screams from those who
> think carpets are more important than the people using them and the issues
> they are talking about.
> 
> In this case, you're concentrating too much on the way people are saying
> things, and not on what's being said. Let's get back to the content.
> 
> Also, the preconditions for an open, democratic list on Spoon terms are
> limited, as we all know. There are not the institutional forms available
> for it. The best we can hope for is quasi-democracy on sufferance, for as
> long as it lasts. As it is, even this inadequate setup can provide a
> stimulating forum for very useful exchanges -- otherwise we wouldn't be
> here.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hugh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 


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