Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 18:52:00 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: 1/2 Some proposals for organizing a new Marxism list


1/2 Some proposals for organizing a new Marxism list
[Posted: 02.05.98 - first as a whole, now in 2 parts to M-G]

[This goes to the Marxism-General (M-G) list and to newsgroups;
it didn't seem to get accepted as a whole on M-G so I'm dividing
it now into 2 parts.]

Some of us M-G subsrcibers want to establish a list of the same
type as M-G (as it was before the Jan '98 clampdown) somewhere
else before this list is finally closed by owners, the Spoons.

How to go about this? Several questions concerning this have
been discussed. Here are some proposals of mine on the respec-
tive matters; I'm writing on the questions of:

1. Principles
2. Fragmentation, the avoiding of
3. New host - the possibilities so far
4. Getting along with new host re principles
5. Committee for organizing new list
6. Administration of new list
7. Money, how to collect and pay
8. Suggestions by others re all the above, please! =09

1. PRINCIPLES

What some of us - no doubt many of us - want is a new *open*
list, such as were M-G and, before that, "M1".

"... a firm constitutional commitment to no censorship, open
list, no posting limits as well..." (Hugh Rodwell). That's self-
evident. Otherwise there wouldn't really be a continuation of
(the ex-January) M-G and the former "M1".

Others may want other kinds of lists, restricted ones in some
respects or others. As for me, I could perhaps subscribe to such
lists too, and post to them once in a while. But they're not of
much interest. They tend to favour the cops and other reactio-
naries. Arguments saying that restrictions are somehow necessary
for allowing third-world etc subscribers to participate don't
hold water and apparently are pretexts.

As far as I'm concerned, the discussion is about how to create
an open Marxism list.


2. FRAGMENTATION, THE AVOIDING OF

Up until now, several lists stating they have something to do
with Marxism have been run by the Spoon Collective, based at
the university of Jefferson Village, Virginia, USA, as far as
the hardware has been concerned. Now if various lists were to
"run off" in various directions, wouldn't that be a drawback?

Yes. But in my opinion, not a decisive one. One of our options,
as it now seems, for a new host is Blythe's. They already host
some lists and/or homepages which are calling themselves
"leftist" or "Marxist". They say they have experience against
closing-down attempts. It may be good to go there for such
resons, those of concentration. But this IMO is not wholly
clear either. Some of the principles of Blyhte's seem to clash
with some of those of (ex-(M-G) and "M1". (More on this under
"4. Getting along with new host...".)

Another possible host is the "IGS" reported by Vladimir B. Per-
haps a new Marxism list would be the only one such hosted by
them. Thus a certain "fragmentation". But this is not a decisive
drawback, I think, if other conditions are good.


3. NEW HOST, THE POSSIBILITIES SO FAR

Of interest, it sems to me, are Blythe's and IGS. We need more
information, I hold, from both of these, on how an open Marxism
list could be hosted by either one of them. Other possibilities,
as far as they're known to me, seem clearly unfavourable.


4. GETTING ALONG WITH NEW HOST RE PRINCIPLES

Blythe's, <accounts-AT-nyxfer.blythe.org>,  said, in the info for-
warded in 4 parts on 26.04 by Siddharth Chatterjee on various
questions:

(Blythe's:)
>1. how much traffic is there on average per day? We have many
>servers with different operating systems (Linus, solaris, NT,
>etc.) This information is needed to plan the proper server and
>operating system for your list.

No problem, I think: We used to have some 10 posts a day, didn't
we (often only 5, a few times 20), but could perhaps expect
traffic to grow later. Back in mid-1996, volume on "M1" was some
80 a day (with 200+ subscribers); that's pretty big and if/when
this level is reached later we could introduce some changes just
for practical reasons. How about saying we want a 10-40 posts-a-
day list?

(Blythe's:)
>2. I assume that you have members-only posting privileges? 
>How many members are on the list?  What sort of security do you
>require before someone is added to the list?  We run only
>secure lists here, with procedures required of the list owners
>that prevent political opponents or pranksters flooding the
>list with garbage.

On this point, "we [Blythe's] run only secure lists here", there
may be a conflict, since *we* (those of *us* who want an *open*
list) only want an "insecure" list.

As far as I understand, the culture on "M1" and later M-G has
been such that the *list community itself* has managed to "pre-
vent political opponents or pranksters from flooding the list
with garbage". And it's necessary to note that precisely on the
question of who *is* a "political opponent" and who's not,
there were always widely differing views on "M1" and M-G. The
subscriber community in this case always in practice regulated
these things quite satisfactorily.

As far as I know, there were no expulsions from "M1" or M-G.
There IMO in no case was a need for any such, and I at least
always opposed all calls for expulsion which there were, inclu-
ding such as were directed against writers I considered to be
very reactionary or even sinister.

Was anyone ever prevented by the Spooners from joining "M1" or
M-G, and if so, on what grounds? I know of no such case.

"Our" basic "insecurity" - which was a good thing too, for pre-
venting censorship on cetrain pretexts - has seemed to me to
work out just fine, in the past. I hold a new list should con-
tinue to be run on the same basis in this respect.

But Blythe's want "security". What could "we" offer them in
that way, then - while not introducing an impossible censorship
- which might satisfy them?

One idea: 1) The address of anyone who'd like to subscribe would
be posted to the list for all to see. 2) Within a given time
(a couple of days or so), any objection that a subscriber might
have to the "candidate" could be posted to the list. 3) In
cases where there was no objection, the "candidate" would be-
come a new subscriber automatically. 4) In cases where someone
did object, the matter would be referred to the commission
("our" commission - I shall come to that) responsible for the
list, for its deciding - publicly, with clear reasons given - on
accepting or refusing the "candidate" in question.

If "we" can't agree with Blythe's on this matter, then we'd
have to go somewhere else.

I'm not certain "we" *will* be able to agree with them. The
"leftist" or rather phony"leftist" circles do include some per-
sons - few, true enough, but not seldom influential ones -
who're really among the worst scum you can find on earth. I
don't know how these things stand, over at Blythe's; one will
have to find this out.

Perhaps the "IGS" is less "security"-minded? I don't know
anything about that.

(Blythe's:)
>3. Naturally, we assume you would do your own administration
>on this list, and of course we would have nothing to say about
>the content of the list.

Yes we'll have to have an administrator. This person would
have to have, or to get, sufficient knowledge of this business,
and to spend the time necessary for running the list. He (or
she - but since "we're" short of womanpower just now, there's no
need to repeat that "or" below) would be responsible to - whom?
To a kind of commission, I think; there's already been talk
about forming a such, on the part of some writers.

The same would no doubt apply if we were to choose IGS.


5. COMMITTEE FOR ORGANIZING NEW LIST

I'm proposing the forming of such a commission consisting of
the following 9 people:

Vladimir Bilenkin	<achekhov-AT-unity.ncsu.edu>=09
Siddharth Chatterjee	<siddhart-AT-mailbox.syr.edu>
Juan Fajardo		<fajardos-AT-ix.netcom.com>=09
Nestor M. Gorojovski	<nestor-AT-sisurb.filo.uba.ar>=09
Robert Malecki		<malecki-AT-algonet.se>
Rolf Martens		<rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>
José F. Polanco		<polancoj-AT-ccaix3.unican.es>
Hugh Rodwell		<m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>=09
José Soto		<sestrada-AT-fcfm.buap.mx>

An odd number, 9 - might be good in voting situations. I've not
asked any of the others if they want to be in on this. I'm
Ccing this posting to the others above, as well as one with
just this proposal in it

What do others say about this idea?

[Continued in part 2/2]



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