File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-04-21.135, message 32

Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 02:05:00 +0200
Subject: M-I: Censorship disguised as complaints about cross posting

M-I, already protected by its firewall of three posts a day, is in the
throes of another purge effort. Carrol C wrote:

>    It had been over a year since I had read Malecki, but reading the
>post quoted by Chris I find Malecki as malevolent, deliberately con-
>temptuous of his readers, incapable of minimally principled poltical
>argument as he ever was. Also, his errors of typing and diction con-
>tinue to be as fake as ever; he is either intellectually incapable
>of or morally indifferent to the task of imagining an error which
>an honest illiterate might commit.
>    I agree with Chris and Louis that the moderators should not
>allow any continuation of such crossposting; If Malecki has "used
>up" his margin of error, I would be in favor of his permanent
>expulsion from m-i.
>    Carrol Cox

This and the posting by Chris B that preceded it are evil omens.

Chris wants anything appearing on M-I to be confined within its walls
forever. So much for the vaunted glasnost and transparency of cyberspace.
Choose your own dungeon and bury yourself there. Or chop yourself into
little pieces and put this little bit in this dungeon, and that other
little bit in that one. Brilliant.

And always the same scapegoat!

Time for a new 1984 hate session against Malecki. Point the finger, folks!
The Stalinist fingers are itchy again.

What posts like the above express is in positive terms a longing for
homogenized consensus pap. Queasy stomachs that can't take real nourishment
or a mixed diet but need predigested detasted gruel.

In negative terms it's the howling of Stalinists and anti-revolutionaries
for the blood of a Trotskyist who never tires of pointing out their
*political* weaknesses and the consequences for the emancipation of the
working class of the policy positions they take. They use Bob's forceful,
forthright, clearly defined Net personality with its warts-and-all
backstreet plebeian in-your-face openness as a cop would -- an excuse to
beat the hell out the poor bastard if they get their  hands on him. No
class deference to Mr Posh needed here, this one'll never write to the
papers or get a lawyer on to us...

And Carrol who's previously preached reams about the virtues of the delete

Can't resist the temptation to expel someone inconvenient on a
technicality, eh? Nothing personal of course, and nothing political, of
course, oh dear no. And Malecki's no political danger to us intelligent
spelling buffs, no way, but wouldn't it be lovely to boot him out just the

Yes. Let's reduce the revolution of poor and working class people from the
wrong side of the tracks to a metropolitan lunch date where everybody knows
how to suck up to the right people and mouth the buzzwords of the week.

Learn to appreciate people who take an independent position!! Who think for
themselves and throw themselves into a debate with passion.

And stop this whining about technicalities and pretending you're affronted
by the suggestion that somebody's writings should be used as toilet paper
(*after* being read and found wanting). During all the shit about Malecki
being a cop and during all of  Adolf-O and his crowd's many vicious
campaigns we didn't hear a dicky-bird about technicalities or offensive
style from our wilting lilies -- or at most a very reluctant whispering
after weeks of vomit being sprayed all over the list. Swallowing camels and
straining at gnats.

If you don't like certain subscribers, delete them unread.

If you want a good list, contribute useful stuff yourself. Here at least
Chris B and Louis P have a go according to their own lights, but they're
not satisfied with that but must shrink everyone else on the list to their
own dimensions and warp them to fit in with their own wonky perspectives.

There's a world of class struggle all around us. The tasks faced by the
working class are huge and acute. Let's pitch into that and debate issues
and policies instead of just trying compulsively to expel opponents and rig
the discussion. It's one thing to lash out at somebody rhetorically for
their political stand, the way Bob often does, and quite another to
sabotage a political discussion by resorting to organizational and
technical subterfuge the way Chris and Carrol are doing.

And that's enough on this point of order for the moment.



     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005