Date: Tue, 11 Mar 97 21:36:41 UT
From: "James Hillier" <Jim_Hillier-AT-msn.com>
Subject: RE: M-I: RE: For a List of Marxist Re-affirmation


The tone of Zeynep's last post was rather different from her earlier ones. The 
fundamental sticking points remain, though. To summarise, for her this list is 
functioning OK despite a few problems; for me, the list is functioning 
anything but OK. For Zeynep, Jerry, Malecki, Rodwell and company are not a 
threat to the list. For me, they and their "contributions" are the very 
opposite of what this list needs.

Zeynep comments:
"What Adolfo has suggested is closed list. This list isn't wasn't proposed
this way, nor is it going to become that way."

Her solution is to say to Adolfo:  "set up another list
somewhere else, if that's what you prefer."

Is it really that simple: an open list vs a closed list? If this list were 
functioning usefully, then I could see the point in posing the matter this 
way. But it very clearly is *not* functioning properly. We are not faced with 
the choice between a good open list and a good closed list. We are faced 
instead with the real question of whether this list can fulful its charter if 
it remains open in the liberal way that it has done up til now.

Zeynep tells us that she is "not asking anyone to leave". But people who would 
want to contribute to a genuine discussion *do* leave, while many others stay 
away because they have heared so many accurate accounts of the kind of nonsene 
this list has to put up with day in and day out.

Zeynep counters that "it is Adolfo and you [Richard, I think - Jim] who are 
saying that it is not possible to contribute to
this list. Adolfo's proposal defines a completely different kind of list. I
didn't even pass judgement on it, I just said that his idea of a list and
this list differ widely and this is causing a strain. Jim wants ruthless
supression of counter-revolutionaries, which of course has the main problem
of deciding who the counter-revolutionaries are."

Actually, what I am suggesting is something a little different from that. Of 
course, it is possible to contribute to a discussion. Of course it is possible 
to post constructive things even when Malecki is going to rant in return and 
Jerry is going to try to provoke a flame. I was not questioning that. I was 
instead questioning why on earth anyone in their right mind could actually 
argue that the list is better off *with* the ranters and those who provoke [I 
am deliberately not using "provocateur" in order to avoid needless confusion 
as to what I am talking about] than without. 

Zeynep's reply is that "The attitude of this list is that people are allowed
to contribute as long as they try to adhere to the rules here, and the posts
of subscribers one finds annoying and not worth replying to should be
deleted. It is not that difficult to delete unwelcome posts." 

She goes on: "As for regular contributors you disagree with politically, I 
must say there is not much this list can do, as it is set up so as not to pass 
judgement in that regard."

I have never asked for people to be thrown off the list because I disagree 
with them politically. I have repeatedly made the distinction between those 
who actually contribute to the list (which includes a great many people I 
disagree with on central political questions, like Louis P and Gary Mc) and 
those who don't and are not interested in doing so.

I do not want the list to be like a party journal, only open to one view. I 
want it to be open, in the sense that open ideological debates can take place 
between those engaged in the class struggle in different parts of the world. 
Not everyone can take part in such debates, and not everyone wants to. The 
problem with a liberal list like the one we've got is that is allows those who 
don't want the list to function at all to throw their spanner in the works. I 
would like nothing better than for someone from the DHKP, for example, to take 
you to task on your post on the question of Third World Stalinism, and for you 
to reply in kind. We could all learn something from that. Whereas from Bob 
Malecki's post on the Turkish Hunger strike way back in the old days of M-1 
(to give an obvious counter-example) no-one could learn anything whatsoever.

One last point. I think the list degenerated further when Adolfo was off. Mark 
Jones has gone, probably for ever. That is a grave loss to this list. People 
will vote with their feet. How sustainable is a list that drives people of the 
calibre of Mark Jones away? In one sense, it is of course fully sustainable. 
Lenin once wrote that paper will support any rubbish you wish to put on it. 
This is even more the case for cyberspace. But a list which cannot keep and 
engage the likes of Mark Jones won't take us a single step forward as 
marxists. Of that I am totally convinced.

For communism

Jim
CAG
London


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