Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 22:10:37 UT
From: "James Hillier" <Jim_Hillier-AT-msn.com>
Subject: M-I: RE: For a List of Marxist Re-affirmation



Zeynep Tufekcioglu raises a number of issues in her post on the proposed new 
list. I would like to comment on some of the aspects of her argument.

She wrote: "Actually, I am in favour of Adolfo and his allies having their own 
lists, in which they can exclude anyone they like."

She continues: "I am certain that if people who don't agree with the charter 
of marxism-international, and who apparently insisted on posting to this list 
for reasons I don't know (perhaps not having a suitable alternative), have 
some space where they can have their rules as they like, all parties would 
benefit. It would make all of our lives easier."

I will not make this a personal matter by asking in what way she thinks the 
list would be so much better off without me (I am clearly included among those 
who should go elsewhere, since I am a staunch ally of Adolfo and Jay and a 
complete opponent of her decision to suspend them from the list), while the 
likes of Jerry Levy, Utica Rose, and Bob Malecki are seen by her as the very 
lifeblood of M-I. 

Instead, I invite her to explain why she is so keen to see the back of 
comrades like Mark Jones and Richard Bos. True, like me, they do not start 
pointless flame wars; true, also, that they do not use the list to pursue 
personal vendettas. That certainly puts them at odds with the Rodwells, Levys 
and Rossers. But perhaps their greatest sin against the spirit and 
constitution of the list is that they don't share the same anti-Communist 
prejudices as the people that Zeynep prefers to have on the list.

I have stated elsewhere what I saw as the purpose of the marxism-international 
list. Zeynep did not criticise my views at the time. I do not much care if 
they fit into the actual wording of the constitution, and I have no interest 
in a legalistic debate on that matter. But I reiterate my fundamental point: 
if the marxism-international list does not function as a forum in which 
marxists, from different geographical and ideological backgrounds, can debate 
and criticise eachother constructively, then it is a waste of time.

Zeynep, are you seriously claiming that this list has benefited one iota from 
the presence of a Jerry Levy? Are you seriously claiming that the likes of 
Rodwell, Malecki and Beggood are interested in *debate* rather than assertion? 
And are you seriously suggesting that the list would have been better off 
without Adolfo's posts on Peru?

The correct response to Adolfo's posts on Peru, for example, would have been a 
detailed critique of his perspectives. I think that those who are sympathetic 
to Castroism and Guevarism, and hence to the MRTA, had plenty to say in 
response. No one did reply, though. Instead, we got a rehash of the murdering 
Pol Potists vs the Gentlemen Revolutionaries line, which, as Adolfo has 
correctly pointed out, is the line of the New York Times and every other 
mainstream "serious" bourgeois paper in the imperialist countries. And whose 
fault is that? Certainly not Adolfo's, whatever you might think.

This is no minor point. Whatever anyone might think about the protagonists in 
the Peruvian struggle, it is self-evident that this country is an important 
arena of anti-imperialist struggle. The MRTA has some 500 POWS, the PCP some 
thousands. A third or so of the country is out of the control of the bourgeois 
state. If marxism-international ends up by having more to say on Jerry Levy's 
row with Lou Proyect than this, if it cannot be a forum for a constructive 
discussion in which the ideological bases of different positions are examined 
concretely in the context of the actual class struggle, then it has failed in 
my book. And, yes, I think genuine marxists and revolutionaries would be 
wasting their time if they stayed on the list under such circumstances.

Who, concretely, held back the discussion on Peru?  Adolfo and Jay? I don't 
think so. Adolfo gave everyone the opportunity to tear his position to pieces 
by setting it out at length. They all declined the challenge. And when he rose 
to the bait offered him by people who were being nothing else but provocative, 
he ended up bounced from the list. For what? For a death threat that was not 
even a death threat - something which you yourself recognised at the outset. I 
agree that moderators should moderate, but this  is a travesty. At least Lou G 
has had the honesty and integrity to admit it was an error. But you are 
committed to defend a decision which was at best mistaken, at worst 
deliberately vindictive against two proven Communist militants.

I presume, now that Jay, Adolfo and Jerry are back on the list (why announce 
it on marxism-general, by the way?) well before the two weeks is up, that the 
moderators accept that the original decision was wrong. Why no collective 
statement criticising the decision, then? Adolfo is absolutely correct when he 
compares the actions of a moderator who refuses to criticise his or her errors 
with the actions and attitudes of those great many former Communists who ended 
up as routine bureaucrats who abused their power and placed themselves above 
the criticism of the masses. Admittedly, this case was a minor one, but the 
principle is the same. 

And I reiterate another point I made back then: when a list tolerates the 
presence - not to say the dominance - of people who aim to block or to derail 
constructive debate, then it cannot play a positive role. If the list does not 
do something to redress the current imbalance, and to set itself on the right 
course - i.e. if it does not develop its own culture of sober, reflective and 
critical debate between committed revolutionaries - then it is condemning 
itself to irrelevance. I suspect you agree with this, and I suspect further 
that the steps you took were intended to put an end to some of the list's 
excesses. But they were the wrong steps! The list did not improve in Adolfo 
and Jay's absence, but rather degenrated further into what one comrade has 
correctly termed navel gazing. 

In my opinion, it is vital that this point be acknowledged, in bothits 
aspects: we have to accept that the list could not go on as it was, and that 
the steps that were decided on were the wrong ones. Then, and only then, can 
we have a useful discussion on what would, in point of fact, be the *correct* 
steps, steps that are necessary if the list, as a constructive entity, is to 
survive at all. 

My proposal is a simple one: expell all those who are in practice dragging 
this list through the mud. Impose one simple rule: if a post is to be 
accepted, it must be demonstrably constructive: either it is a helpful inquiry 
or it is a serious contribution to discussion. Cross-posts and news items 
should be decided on by the moderators as they arise, on the basis of 
commitment to real debate. Anything that does not meet the criteria should be 
rejected. This is real moderation. 

I would go further: I think that contributors will have to learn a new way of 
dealing with eachother. Insults are the easy way out, as are comments designed 
to arouse anger. I do not propose that we draw up a list of acceptable terms 
or anything of the kind; we cannot *impose* mutual respect. But I do think 
that contributors should become more responsible in the way they construct 
their arguments. 

One final point. Zeynep writes that:

"I truly believe that the problem of too many list subscribers having too much 
free time to spend in front of a computer, and little else to do, has 
compounded our problems."

I agree. Completely.

She goes on: "It is my personal opinion that people living in countries in 
which the on-going revolutionary struggle is dynamic and alive have different 
priorities than those that seem to have endless time to ruminate over 
questions, often but not always irrelevant, that are not possible to solve in 
a mailing list."

Again, I agree completely. ButI wonder who she is referring to. In the state 
in which I live, there is an ongoing war of national liberation. Under the 
Prevention of Terrorism Act, innocent people like Roisin McAliskey are held in 
brutal, inhuman conditions without a shred of evidence. There are some 500 
revolutionary prisoners of war held by my ruling class. And I certainly do not 
have endless hours to waste in front of a computer screen debating side issues 
with people who do not care what is right and what is wrong, but only want to 
score points and show how "clever" they are. It is the same state in which 
Richard, Adolfo and Mark Jones live, by the way. But then maybe you weren't 
referring to us after all.

For communism

Jim
Communist Action Group
London



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