File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1998/marxism-general.9805, message 91


Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 21:59:05 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: On committee, Blythe's, Utah, charter


On committee, Blythe's, Utah, charter
[Posted: 05.05.98]

Together with this, I'm also posting the M-G charter (which
can still be obtained from Spoons). I recommend it for study!
Some people now are proposing some very strange "rules" which
flagrantly contradict that - actually excellent, except for
one somewhat minor thing - charter concerning the *vital* matter
of openness. Separately, I shall post some comments on those 
proposals and on those recent actions which we all know about. 
See other postings by me:

"The M-G charter (still current) etc" and
"M-G's openness charter vs certain proposals & actions!"


The 4 things in my subject line above I shall write on in turn:

1. Committee:

A committee to organize a new M-G type list was originally
suggested by Vladimir and Hugh. I proposed a 9-persons such on 
02.05. Nestor couldn't partcipate. Juan on 03.05 wrote that it
seemed that 4 people had stated their wish to be on a such:
Himself (Juan), Bob, I (RM) and Vlad. So it seems to me too. 
Others haven't replied concering that proposal. So we presumably
have an ad hoc committee of those 4. Would others like to join
it? (Also, see under "3 - Utah...".) Juan stressed the importan-
ce of having such a committee. I agree on that.

But no-one among my 3 co-members in that committee - if we do 
have one - is, IMO, a completely consistent advocate of open-
ness! This it's necessary to note. (Cf recent posts of theirs, 
and see other posting by me today.) 

So what to do? Can they be influenced? With some help from Hugh 
perhaps? But he seems to be too shy,or something, to volounteer 
for such a committee!?  


2. Blythe's - as one possible place where to go:

Siddharth got some information from them, posted here on M-G in
4 parts under "NY Transfer" on 27.04. There's i.a. a problem I 
noted later: They wrote they only run "safe" lists, with proce-
dures for accepting new subscribers. Solvable, I think/hope.

I still think Blythe's and IGS are the most promising possibili-
ties. Juan wrote he'd undertake to get more information from
IGS. That's good. I on my part intend to write to Blythe's, tell
them more about M-G's (original) principles and ask for more
info about how - a really open - list could be set up there.
I shall Cc to this list my mail(s) and their reply (replies).


3. Utah - (Hans E. list) to where others want to rush

This is one thing I'm against, as I've already written. Such a
list will *not* be a really open one, everything points to.

Here the question of time comes in. Will it be possible to
establish an open list, or a clear possibility for one, at
Blyhte's or IGS, within a reasonably short span of time? I
shall work in that direction. 

Bob writes, on 04.05, that he'd be the first to subscribe to
"my" list. OK, that sounds good! We then could have a small
private (continued) bloodbath there, to begin with. Might
hopefully interest some others.

But it *is* questionable whether I (*am* I alone now in wanting
this? - perhaps not quite!) can manage to establish such a thing
"in time", at the present stage.

Juan says time is short and recommends taking up Hans' offer
of a Utah list - as a temporary measure, he on his part stres-
ses. Bob and Vlad want us to go to Utah too.

Well then, if a Blythe or IGS project doesn't come off within
a reasonably short span of time, I on my part have the choice
between recommending others either 1) to go to that "shit list" 
(as I've earlier said such a thing would be) at Utah *for the 
time being*, as "better than nothing", and 2) to wait until that
really open list appears (if it does so); "in the meantime,
never mind Utah."

Juan did put a question to me concerning this. And my reply is,
that under those circumstances - nothing really good appearing
"in time" - I'd have to realize "I'm licked" (and others are
too) and would choose 1) above: let's belly-crawl to that Utah
thing as "better than nothing for now - let's however, while
there, discuss how to organize a *real* continuation of M-G".

This tallies too with what I've said several times before. 
I did have much higher hopes - that's another matter.

On one point, Juan (on 03.05) somehow misunderstood me: He 
tought I would in no circumstances accept working with Hans E.

I never wrote that. I've said, and repeated, that it would be
bad to have Hans running a list, if you want it to be a really 
open such. As arguments for this I've pointed to his recent ac-
tions concerning M-G - actions either initiated by him or else 
decreed on by the Spoons and accepted without protest by Hans:
the disabling of the "who" commands, the January restrictions
clamdown, the closing of the archives (all these actions ap-
plauded and "defended", recently, on 04.05, by Chris Burford - 
of course).

But I've not *excluded* working with *anyone*. If necessary,
I'd accept working with Hans E. too.

Hugh in a posting on 22.04 wrote:

>I'm afraid I can't get any more concrete than this right now. 
>It'll be good to get away from the arbitrary trifling of the 
>Spoons list management though.

(Yes, absolutely!)

>By the way, for whatever reason, Hans Ehrbar is no longer a 
>member of the Spoon Collective, which I see as a positive step 
>given the shenanigans we've had to witness here. It'd be nice 
>to hear Hans's reasons for bidding Spoon farewell.

Possibly, it has been the Spoons who've been even more fanatical
against openness than Hans E.? But I wouldn't bank on that.
Even if Hans "just obeyed orders", he still *is* a troublemaker,
for all his technical expertise. The Utah list *will* be a
kind of slave list. Perhaps the slavery there can be migitated
a little bit - if we "have to" go there.

Now who'd be in charge of that Utah list that Hans proposed
(or offered to do the main administrating of)? Does he want to
run it all by himself? It seems not. He wrote (on 27.04) that he
put forward his proposed rules "as suggestions". 

Should I volounteer to be on a committee for running that
Utah list and - logically then, in connection with this - to
do part of that list's administrative work?

No, I think not. This is because under the circumstances, this
list seems to me to be as good as impossible to turn into a
really open one. So I shall *not* work with Hans E. on this
particular matter. (On this then, Juan got me right.)

Subscribe, yes, participate in running and/or administrating,
no, on my part, concerning "Utah". It's not worth the trouble.

As I said, this subscribing to a Utah list and recommending
others then to do the same, is in the case that an *open list* 
does *not* materialize "in time", e.g. at Blythe's or IGS.

Concerning the name of that "Utah" list - that's not so impor-
tant. But I'd prefer Juan's suggestion "M3" to "Marxism-Open" -
it's less flagrantly misleading and hypocritical as to what that
list will most probably be.


3. Charter

Bob suggested a list charter. I shall not comment on it directly
now, and won't put forward a complete suggestion of my own
just now either. Here only a couple of comments on this matter.

In Bob's proposal there were some initial words about workers'
movement etc. Juan had objections on some points here. I agree
with him in finding some nuances and implications not all that
good. Concerning this matter I'd like to say above all however
that it's not really necessary to have much more here than one 
basic point - I'm describing it, not proposing a charter line:

Marxists hold that the overwhelming majority of all people have
common basic interests and consider it as their aim to serve
there interests. The question of what serves those interests,
versus what does the opposite, is the most important one. (Here
goes the dividing line between genuine Marxism and sham - this
thing one doesn't have to write down.) 

We don't need to speak about whether people "are workers", "are
connected to the workers' movement" etc etc. The important thing
is the ideological and political line.

The Spoons even had - still have - as *their* intro line some-
thing about wanting "free and open discussions on philosophical
matters". This didn't prevent "M1" and later M-G from being
(as long as that lasted) quite excellent forums (fora!?).

So far concerning a possible intro statement of a list charter.

And for now, concerning list rules, I'd just like to remind
everyone of what the M-G charter actually says.

On this, see the other postings I shall send now:

"The M-G charter (still current) etc" and 
"M-G's openness charter vs certain proposals & actions!"

Rolf M.



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005