Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 22:11:02 +0100
From: Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>
Subject: Re: M-G: Changes at M-G impending


Hans E writes:

> it would seem perfectly feasible to leave M-G as it is.

Sure would.

>If nothing else, the change must seem arbitrary to you.

Sure does.

>It is my own judgment, as a
>spooner and as a long time observer of marxism space, that M-G as it
>stands now has higher political costs than most of you realize.

Ah, but we don't think so.

> I also think that despite the existence of delete buttons the atmosphere
>of a list can be spoiled if there are too many inappropriate postings.

This is content argument.

>Most importantly I think that most (although admittedly not all) of
>the benefits of the present M-G can be realized by a different kind of
>list which would also otherwise fill an unmet need in marxism-space.

If it ain't broke, don't mend it. Hans is in a cleft stick here. He fails
to tell us what he sees as the benefits of the present M-G, and also fails
to tell us which would have to go.

And filling unmet needs is something Spoon has previously dealt with by
just rolling out a new list, without batting an eyelid. Why doesn't
Malgosia set up the one-post a day sound-bite list if she so desperately
wants it? Why put this new list up against M-G as if we have to choose
between them, when none of us (except half of David S) want to?

>The list which I hope M-G will transform itself into will be a slower
>and at the same time more open, diverse, and accessible version of
>marxism-international (M-I) or marxism-thaxis.

Open diverse and accessible would not be a "version" of M-I but its polar
opposite. And the openness and diversity of Thaxis depend very much on the
freedom to pursue discussions spontaneously as they dart out of their
boltholes. Accessibility is a question of people wanting to talk to each
other. Nobody's complained about the accessibility of M-G as it is. People
have moaned about certain shortcomings, never expecting to get shut down
for a bit of letting off steam.

Hans shares a few home truths about the Stalinist gulag over on M-I:

> M-I not only has a
>three-post limit but is also moderated by content, both explicitly by
>the moderators expelling certain list members, and implicitly by the
>moderators not intervening when members of M-I try to silence, drive
>off, or intimidate other list members.


>In M-G, as I intend to
>moderate it, purges will not happen, and invectives of the form: "you
>sleazy nose-picking privilege-grabbing intellectual, go back to
>marxism-thaxis where you belong," will be followed up by a polite
>disclaimer from the moderator that, although such invectives are not
>outlawed on this list, they should not taken to represent list
>consensus; such outbursts often convey considerably more information
>about the author of these invectives than about their target.

But this is the way things are now -- so what needs fixing???

>There is a third kind of censorship on the busier lists: every posting
>which tries to take Marx's labor theory of value seriously, or which
>believes in the feasibility of non-market-driven planning, is
>immediately followed up by 10 postings refuting this.  I think this is
>a distortion,

Now just what does Hans or Spoon think discussion is all about? Seeing
something you want to discuss and keeping mum? Vigorous discussion is a
*distortion*??

>and I hope the one post a day limit will allow a more
>balanced representation of the views and the combined wisdom of
>Marxists.

But this is utopian. You can do this at a meeting when there's a degree of
trust -- going round from member to member sounding out views of the
normally silent. There's no way you can conjure lurkers out of their
hidey-holes on a cyber list except by free and open discussion with a
tolerant tone that invites people to risk an opinion because they're not
risking their personal integrity by it. And the very openness and tolerance
of the rules of M-G help in this -- there has been no way any special
pressure group has had the clout to silence or remove people just by
pointing the finger or going by the back door to a biased moderator (as is
the case on M-I now).

Most of those writing on M-G have in fact stated quite explicitly that they
fully support the setup as is, and want to argue on political content, not
points of order.


>At a time when the very core of marxism has become a
>minority view,

This is not new.

>a list which protects minority views is especially
>necessary.

Sure. Let's start Marxism-Minority.

>And this protection cannot consist in one big
>laissez-faire list and hoping for the best,

Who says it should? Start a new list and keep the one the subscribers all want.

>Despite the wishful thinking of some of its subscribers, M-G has never
>been the center of marxism space; the center was usually M-I.

We've discussed this before. Things can change. M-I is now a wreck, thanks
to the politics underlying the regimes favoured by Louis Godena and Louis
Proyect. At least they have each other.

Since when was not being the centre of marxism space a reason for closing a
list down? What about M-fem or M-psy, or even the original m-2 which was
set up as a more or less explicit ivory tower?


>M-G has
>been considered the madhouse which keeps the lunatics away from the
>civilied regions.

By its enemies. Not by its subscribers (except perhaps for Doug the eternal
outside observer). If a majority of the subscribers thought this, Hans
might have a point. But they don't. It's the Malgosias of the world who
think this, and the Proyects, and others who don't care tuppence for the
fate of M-G, except that they want it gone.

>If you want M-G to become the center, you have to
>do some work.  Send your best postings here

Forget the centre, good discussions attract people.

>and don't cross post them
>elsewhere.

That must be up to the writer of each post.

>Spend the time to make them self-contained and accessible.
>Make all your arguments explicit.

Good advice, but what's it got to do with killing M-G?


>I am committed as you all are to a list without any moderation.  I am
>the author of the old info sheet of M-G.  I consider the present
>change a tactical retreat.

I think Hans should come clean. A retreat in the face of what? It's
certainly not in the face of big protests about the lists from subscribers.
Where's the pressure coming from? It must be outside M-G. Inside Spoon
maybe, but outside M-G. Where are Hans's loyalties?

>If you can come up with an alternative
>provider for a completely unmoderated list, then I will fully support
>this.  Perhaps at some later time the spoon collective will again host
>an unmoderated marxism list.

Sounds liike Spoon pressure a la Malgosia. "No buts -- do it!" Poof!
Gone... I hope Hans doesn't let her destroy his integrity and independence
the way she gutted Carrol Cox (and the list itself) on M-Fem in her
hate-filled pursuit of Bob M.

Now when M-I was working the way it should, with a respected team of
moderators (which boiled down to Jon F and Zeynep), Proyect mounted a
really large-scale witch-hunt against Bob Malecki that backfired on him
because he failed to prove his lies and could get no organizational support
from the moderators to hound Bob out for infringing some formality or
other. Proyect also got slammed for his manoeuvres by a number (shamefully
small) of other subscribers.

So the point at issue for a healthy list is not really moderated or
unmoderated but the content and the general tone of debate. A list that can
take the turbulence whipped up by a Proyect or an Oleachea and come out of
it stronger and more centred is a good list. I think the old M-I had this
capacity. M-Thaxis has it now (Proyect has slunk off with his tail between
his legs after a brief guest appearance). M-General has always had it,
although perhaps even more open to these wreckers than other lists. But
they had no monopoly position to preach their filth, so they gave up in the
end.

If Spoon gives up on unmoderated marxism-general now, it will never come
back -- and history will leave it once more a sleepy little cyber-corner of
the home of imperialism.

Hans rounds off:

>By the way, in the past I used to think that the remedy which would
>make M-G a better list, would be to expell certain members.  I no
>longer think so and publicly exercise self-criticism for these errors.

Why save the best till last?

Cheers,

Hugh




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