Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:00:00 +0000 From: Nick Holden & Kate Ahrens <glengate-AT-foobar.co.uk> Subject: Re: M-I: Mensheviking I know this is my fourth of the day, but I haven't posted anything for a week, thanks to the arrival of Sophie, so I hope, Jon, you and others will forgive me a little excess while I try to catch up - 3 posts a day is fine, but if I can only log on once a week, do I get 21? jonathan flanders wrote: > > I don't expect that we are all going to be a big happy family. Far from > it. But I think that the approach that you advocate is static and takes > little account of how people might be won over to another view. > > I also don't expect to be able to change fundamentally your or Lou P's > style of argument. But since I am a moderator at the moment I will > occasionally try to steer things towards a more comradely atmosphere if I > can. > But a comradely atmosphere is not imposed - it develops through joint activity and mutual respect and understanding. It also requires quite rigorous political honesty. I think it is almost impossible to achieve on a mailing list (it requires the relationship to be built on many levels, including practical activity which is difficult across so many miles and cultures). However, if we intend to try, all well and good, but we have to do it openly. That means accepting that there will be 'name calling', if by that you mean catergorising people. I think 'menshevik', 'trot', etc. acceptable in the sense that they are political labels. Louis may not like being called a menshevik, and if he can convince enough of us that he ain't one, then we are free to defend him from the charge. But it is not name calling in a personal sense. That is where moderators should get heavy-handed: personal abuse should not be mistaken with sharp political debate. For example, Dave B on the SWP used the similarities between the SWP and the mensheviks to make a political point - would you outlaw that? Even were you able to define a list of catergories that were unacceptable, the logic of the political conflicts would result in new insults being created. There are massive political differences on this list, on basic questions, such as the nature of the party, and the role of the vanguard vis a vis the working class, and these will not be resolved without application of the various lines in practice and an honest learning from mistakes and experiences. The refining of lines and positions necessitates sharp conflicts: if Louis is to be protected from the name "menshevik", is he also to be protected from "defeatist", or "fatalist"? Where do you stop? No, I think you cannot reconcile these conflict by asking for good behaviour, I'm afraid. Either we will learn from our experiences, and coallesce, or the list will shatter, but you cannot keep it going by forced good manners. You would kill the politics, which is the point of it all. Nick --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005