Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:43:12 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: Open-listers, unite!; mid-fielders, please clarify!


Open-listers, unite!; mid-fielders, please clarify!
[Posted: 28.04.98]

[This goes to the Spoon Collective's soon-to be-killed, now 
restricted Marxism-General list (M-G), to the Spoons' new 
"Marxism-Transition" list (M-T) and to newsgroups.]

In the discussions among some of us M-G subscribers about how
to create a new list along the same lines when the Spoons, as
they have announced they wiil, close M-G (and all their other
Marxism-related lists), two main parties already have formed -
amidst some confusion which was only to be expected:

On the one hand, there is a group of writers whom I shall call
"open-listers". I count myself as belonging in that group.
With some of the others in it, I as is known disagree sharply
on some vital political issues. But on this particular and IMO
not unimportant issue, they and I agree.

Our common standpoint on this was expressed, for instance, by
Hugh Rodwell in a posting today where he mentioned:

[Hugh R.:]
>... my position of a firm constitutional commitment to no
>censorship, open list, no posting limits as well...

Precisely this has been my position too. All the time I've been 
posting to M-G and its predecessor "M1", since April 1996, I've
defended and advocated this.

And of course precisely this was the important thing too about 
"the old" M-G (before the January sabotage of it by its owners) 
and the even earlier "M1", which existed until Oct 1996.

We're the ones who really want a continuation of (the real) M-G.

In sharp contrast to this group, another has been formed, con-
sisting of two people including the present M-G administrator: 
The Burford/Ehrbar gang.

They want there to be various restrictions on any list which
they would like to support, posting limits like those infamous 
ones imposed on M-G last January etc, etc. (A posting today by
Chris Burford clearly shows up the forming of this coalition.) 

In between those two, there's a kind of mid-field consisting
of a few writers who haven't all that clearly said what they 
want.

There also has been some voting, on a couple of proposals con-
cerning deciding procedure and concerning where to set up a
new list. This voting, in my judgement, has produced some small
and admittedly unclear results which however are not quite
without significance. These are questioned by others; there's
a debate over how to count "majorities", and what majority one
should take as the significant one.

On the last part of that question, I since long have had the 
standpoint on principle, that what one in the final instance
should go by is, whether this or that line of action favours the
common interests of the overwhelming majority of all people or
whether it disfavours it.

And there being such an open and unrestricted Marxism mailing
list as that discussed above, this IMO precisely is very much in
the interest of that overwhelming majority of people. It would
be bad if there were only restricted lists, censored, moderated,
posting-limited such, for instance. (I shall not here try to
explain why. This has been argued on and discussed so many times
by so many already.)

We "open-listers", on this particular point, represent some
not unimportant interests of people in general.

How much support is it likely that we have, on this point, with-
in that small international community which is made up by the
subscribers to either one of the M-G or M-G Digest lists and
which (today) comprises some 90 + 30 people?

Overwhelming support, I'm certain. This one might guess, even to
begin with. And the events in connection with the announcing
last January of the Spoon's planned (sabotage) restrictions on
M-G very clearly point towards this being so.

What happened then? A considerable number of subscribers posted 
*in vehement protest against* the planned restrictions, *for* 
M-G's remaining as it was, many of them expressly stressing the 
importance of there being such a completely open list. 

Against this, there was only one lone voice heard (half) suppor-
ting the "changes" (which were ridiculously stated by the admi-
nistrator to be "intended to improve the list's quality"). 

Protesters last January - up until (and including) 13.01 when I 
reproduced quotes from their (our) statements in a summing-up 
posting to newsgroups - were:

Robert Malecki <malecki-AT-algonet.se> 
Rolf Martens <rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se> 
Sheila Walters <swalters-AT-odu.edu>
Rob Lyon <rlyon-AT-gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> 
Stuart Sheild <m-18043-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>
Vladimir Bilenkin <achekhov-AT-unity.ncsu.edu>
"J.K.Marks" <J.K.Marks-AT-ibm.net> (later known as "the centipede") 
Juan Fajardo <fajardos-AT-ix.netcom.com>
SeanOlds <SeanOlds-AT-aol.com>
Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>
"jay" <ferdi-AT-deathsdoor.com> [Ferdi]
Doug Henwood <dhenwood-AT-panix.com> 

[I'm counting Doug's posting among the protests, though he dif-
fered from the others in expressing his *dislike* for M-G - a 
positive sign too, when coming from him]

Rebecca Peoples <wellsfargo-AT-tinet.ie>

To these 13 stating their opposition to the restrictions, a
couple of others later added themselves.

A very strong pro-openness opinion there was then, and no doubt
there is today too, among us approximately 120 people.

Here I'd like to make one point concerning one danger that was
argued by Hugh R. (in his abovementioned posting) against one
way of geting a decision on various matters, the one of simply
counting the votes (expressly) cast by subscribers in favour
versus those against:

(Hugh:)
>There's nothing to stop our enemies (ie enemies to *all of us*)
>subscribing en masse and dumping us by a majority decision -- 
>and this'll be even easier if only those voting are counted.

No, there *is* a factor that tends to stop this, or at least to
make it very difficult! Our (M-G and "M1") experience so far 
seems to show this too: The reactionaries in the world simply 
*don't have all that many people* to "send in" for such "mis-
sions"! Not even the really BIG ones, not even against "our" 
small group, which, at any rate numbering some 120, has not ex-
perienced any such "flooding" attempts worth mentioning yet and
probably, hopefully, won't run much risk of this in the future
either. This because the (openly-)reactionary cliques are be-
coming so more and more isolated and hated in the world.

Even a group (an international group) of some 120 people today
is *very* difficult for the reactionaries to "deluge" with cops 
and reactionary elements. That's one positive factor to reckon
with in our present "list" dicussions.


We "open-listers" should join forces - on this particular
matter, of course. (Some of you others are not going to forget
your sharp political differences to each other or to me, and I
on my part won't forget my corresponding such either.) We should 
(continue to) take the initiative for a new Marxism list. Per-
haps we shall be joined by some of the "mid-fielders". Any
help from the Burford/Ehrbar gang we needn't look for. Those
people can go where it might please them (as far as I'm con-
cerned), including, later, to our(!?) future list of course.

Some comments to two people I'm sorry to see arguing somewhat 
"mid-fieldishly", Sid C. and Vladimir B.:

Look, Sid: Bob and Hugh by no means were arguing "individualis-
tically" when saying that *openness is non-negotiable*. They
were defending the most vital M-G principle, for Chrissake,
vital *absolutely not* only to a couple of people but *to prac-
tically all of us*. Don't you regard openness as vital? Then
go in peace with the Burford/Ehrbars. It would be much better,
though, if you came in with us. For all I know, those two above-
mentioned Trots may not like my company at all. But on this mat-
ter, of list openness, I'm going with (*i.a.*) them. And you?

The same to Vlad: You were among those who rather forcefully
opposed the M-G restriction plans in January, and have repeated-
ly before too stressed the importance of there being an uncen-
sored, unrestricted list. But now you yesterday wrote, on that
"openness is non-negotiable" statement, that it's "metha-
physics". It's nothing of the sort of course. It's a statement
concerning a principle that's held to be vital. 

It's known - to take just one famous example - that Lenin also 
stressed the necessity of working in the "yellow", tsarist, 
trade unions as well. And we've all (with our differing stand-
points) stayed on in the (since last January) "yellow" M-G too. 
But here it's a question, not of any "necessary belly-creeping" 
but of recreating, by our joint efforts, the sort of list which 
we had and which we want. (Out of the 120 people on M-G, how
many want that too? I'd be very surprised if it was fewer than
100.) 

Do you really think that one should accept something as a "con-
tinuation of M-G" that would be *less* open that that list, Vla-
dimir? If "yes", then you'd have changed your standpoint since
January, it seems to me, and for the worse. I hope your answer
is "no". 

I had hoped to get around to some actual proposals for organi-
zing a new list, preferably on Blythe's if possible, in this
posting, but I shall have to put this off some more, until
tomorrow or so.

Rolf M.



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