Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 00:06:23 -0500 (EST)
From: malgosia askanas <ma-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re:  M-G: MIM replies on M-G & M-C


First, let me say that I found MIM's latest message to be like a fresh 
breeze, in that it actually contained some stuff that invited thought.

I think that ultimately there is no useful insight to be gained by trying 
to analyze the relations between Spoon and the M-G list in terms of
"production", "consumption", "ownership", "use", "services", "NGOs",
"governments" and other models that have been proposed, with varying 
degrees of ill or not-so-ill will, by Rolf, Vladimir, and MIM.  Instead, here 
is a much simpler and apter model.  The Spoon Collective is a certain kind 
of political association.  To the extent to which this is so, its politics 
are inextricably tied to Marx and Marxian thought.  Consequently, we have,
at least in theory, a sense of community -- of thought, of purpose -- with 
other people whose political thinking is Marxist or Marxian.  The original 
M1 list, and its subsequent "reorganizations" into the present "Marxism space",
were a result of this.

So let's, for a moment, consider M-G as a "community" in which all give
and take, produce and consume, ply their trades, push their agendas, do their
collective thinking, what not.  Now the catch is that what Spoon brings
into this communal stew is different from what everybody else brings in:
we bring in the labor and the system resources necessary to keep the
operation going.  We have access to a scarce resource: a computer system
running a listserver.  The list can exist only for as long as we are willing
to contribute this resource to it.  If we pull out, it's pretty catastrophic.
And of course we keep, in various ways, pulling out, when the stew is not
to our liking.  As do all the other participants, but in their case with
less catastrophic results.

Now what does it mean for us to "contribute" this resource?  Let's say
that someone on the list came forth and said:  You guys want to pull out, but
I want the list to continue as it was, and I am willing to do the work; 
give me access to the resources so we can share them and not depend on you.
The resources should become "shared", so that no one sub-cell of the community 
"hoards" or "contributes" them.  This is a perfectly reasonable concept.  
Would the Spoons agree to it?  No, such agreement is most unlikely.  Why?  
For the simple reason that we don't trust anybody on this list.  Why should we?
There is on the list plenty of mutual condescension, contempt, denunciation, 
"snitching" and "coutersnitching", but trust?  I think not.  Who are the  
"visible" people on the list with whom we should accede to enter into 
a relationship that requires political trust and solidarity?  And in this
we are, of course, the rule, not the exception.  Would MIM trust Rolf with 
access to their computer system?  Would Rolf trust Hugh?  Would Hugh trust 
Adolfo?  Would Adolfo trust Doug?  Would Doug trust Vladimir?  Would Vladimir 
trust me?  Spoon fits right into this game, beautifully.  And the present
bothering of each other, the spurious idiocies designed to sap each other's 
energy, the "outcry" and "indignation" --  as if this lack of trust and this
mutual contempt were _not_ business as usual --  fits in, too.  All of it
business as usual.  

The suggestion that Rolf start his own list has very little to do with
"bourgeois individualism".  It has to do with this lack of trust.
Spoon is certainly not going to give Rolf access to its resources.  And
as long as this is true, Rolf is dependent on _our_ good will, our
willingness to continue the list in the "old way".  We have no solidarity
with him or he with us, so he should form a list with those who _do_,
and break this stupid and politically embarrassing dependence on non-allies.  
No?  It's so utterly simple.


-m


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