Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:14:01 -0500 (EST)
From: louisgodena-AT-ids.net (Louis R Godena)
Subject: M-I: Uh...Folks?



When M-I first saw the light of day back in October,  it was the hope of
just about everyone that the bad old days of M-1 were behind us forever.
We have,  surely,  all learned a lot in the past year,  especially me.
M-I,  in its infancy,   has been the incubator for a number of very good
posts that have shed as much light as heat on issues important to all of us.
We need to improve,  both in scope and quality,  the posts that have marked
the first six weeks of our existence.    However,  this does not detract
>from what I at least feel is a very good start.

What *does* detract from the lustre of M-I,  in my opinion,  are two rather
endogenous facets of our short life.    First of all,  we need to attract
and keep more (many more) people from the developing world.    M-I is
becoming a mirror image of M1 in this regard; a gathering place for white
heterosexual First World Men,  each with our own little axe to grind or
point to make .    This is contrary to both the spirit and purpose of
Marxism-International.   Perhaps part of the problem is with the moderators.
We have two white labor aristocrats (Jon Flanders and myself) and one third
world revolutionary woman (I won't embarass her by name).     This,
clearly,  is hardly an optimal balance.     It has been suggested that the
very title of  "Marxism--Something"  may be off-putting when presented in a
first world context.     Perhaps.     It is something we certainly need to
ponder-- along with the lack of third world men and women in our midst.

The second problem (as I see it) is well illustrated by the current thread
on "Human Needs" which grew,  innocently enough,  out of an offhand remark
by someone posting to the  "Marxism Books" thread.    Fair enough.   It has,
as of late,  gotten quite silly.     Nobody wants to waste each other's time
(and bandwidth) by arguing about who likes or enjoys sex more or who has
"bruised" who,  and for what reason,  or whatever.     This is opinion
masquerading as fact.     Sex or any other subject presented to the members
on Marxism-International should have a readily discernible political
context,   or else be taken off list and discussed privately.    The rest is
just stream-of-consciousness and visceral prejudice in about equal measure.
It does not contribute positively to the  ecology of this list.     The same
is true of running personal feuds that are carried on publicly, *ad
infinitum* and with increasing acrimony.     Surely,  this is out of place here.

In closing,  I want to make it clear that I am speaking as a list member,
and not in my capacity as a co-moderator. I leave it to the others to make
their own comments,  which may diverge substantially from mine.    I also
want to commend the other members of this list for their efforts and for the
talents and interests they bring to it.    Most are angular personalities,
relentless and sometimes overbearing in argument.    Gifted by nature with
acute powers of perception,  they nevertheless become,  when mounted on
their hobby horse of the moment,  impervious to the reactions of the
listener.    And some have never learned that constant reiteration can be
counter-productive.    Yet all this should not weigh in the balance against
the magnititude and quality of their contributions to Marxism-International.
I am simply arguing for a different focus,  with a modification of personal
idiosyncracies.   
There is much here that is good.    Let's continue to build on it.

Louis Godena       



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