Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 17:14:31 +0200
From: Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>
Subject: Re: M-I: Crossposting -- reply to moderator


This is a reply to a point of order, not a normal contribution to
m-international.

Zeynep writes in her capacity as moderator:

>In this regard, Hugh is in the wrong regarding the crossposting. His post
>from thaxis is exactly what we don't want. The reason is simple, there are
>two types of sub*scribers in marxism space. There are people who don't want
>to hear of anything from other lists, and there are people who do. Category
>1 doesn't sub*scribe to the lists they don't want and category 2 sub*scribes
>to all. Such crossposts simply irritate category 1 (who are presumably
>adults with e-mail accounts and they can sub*scribe to any list they want)
>and are redundant for category 2 who already get the message.

This sounds plausible enough on first reading, but if you look at it from
the content point of view,  discourse about Marxism, it's warped. It's also
made worse by the attempt to give it a logical appearance.

There is nothing in the concept of discourse about Marxism that entails any
intrinsic value for the source medium of a contribution. Any journal, any
tv-show, any book, any conversation, any film, any event etc may serve
perfectly well as a starting-point for valuable discourse about Marxist
issues. This goes for Net-sites of all descriptions, including other
Marxist lists.

If the subscribers who "don't want to hear anything from other lists" are
so important, then the content description of the list concerned should be
altered to make this clear -- e.g. this list is not about Marxism but about
ideas appealing to subscribers to this list and only them, OR this list is
not about Marxism, but about ideas appealing to subscribers to this list
originating anywhere in the world *except* on other Marxism lists.

I find it intolerable that a medium such as a netlist should be fetishized
to the extent that it becomes banned on another list so closely related
that it's impossible to distinguish conceptually between the purposes of
the lists in question. What's at issue becomes not a *list* with rules of
democratic engagement, but the people and ideas involved and ad hominem
rules to block out unwanted people and ideas. Louis P is the biggest mouth
supporting this personalization line with its anti-Trotskyist slant. I've
lost count of the number of times he's proposed that "we need a list
without X or Y or Z". This is turf mentality. It has nothing to do with the
Marxist tradition (rooted in Marx and Engels rather than Stalin or Mao, I
hasten to add) of free democratic debate -- the no holds barred, heated
clash of ideas so hypocritically (??) lauded in the purpose blurb.

However sensitive subscribers of the exclusive persuasion might be to
certain other subscribers who post regularly to other lists, they can have
no complaints (according to the statutes so far) about postings that
genuinely raise issues central to the statement of purpose of the list they
subscribe to.

Zeynep makes it sound as if the passive, thin-skinned, turf-obsessed
recipient is the only stakeholder in the discourse game. This is not so. A
discussion with Marxists or those interested in Marxism thrives on varied
input and a wide audience. Those initiating and maintaining discussions,
the active contributors, are important stakeholders too.

Some posters don't just post to tickle the fancy of a few chosen soulmates
in a cosy little club. For these stakeholders the various responses from
subscribers on Thaxis, International or General add greatly to the value of
the discussion.

What's more, there are already adequate solutions available for those with
personal aversions. Kill files filter out objectionable subscribers,
regardless of the origin of the posting. Also, nobody is forced to read any
posting. It's like a newspaper. You can skip the shit. You may come across
a name you detest in a by-line, but that's life -- and a signal to go and
read something else. The delete button's just sitting there waiting to be
hit.

The direction of recent Spoon practice with respect to discussing Marxism
-- from Poof! Gone on M-fem to this formalism on m-international -- is
reactionary, abstract  and individualistic. It's heading for good old
American petty-bourgeois pragmatism. The singer not the song, the medium
not the message, coercive consensus. Amusing conversation clubs...

The way it should be is *content first*. And the "reasonable adults" line
Zeynep uses must be taken to imply people who don't throw a tantrum when
some kid from another neighbourhood walks through the door. Reasonable
adults are aware that the pool of subscribers on each list in Marxism space
is partially the same and partially distinct. Central issues like value
theory should appeal to all the lists and elicit contributions from all of
them. Reasonable adults will accept this and encourage the non-sectarian
development of Marxist ideas. Spoilt brats will scream blue murder when
*their* sandpit is *invaded*.

No steps forward, three steps back.

Don't infantilize the lists!!

One more point:

Could we have a definition of a cross-posting, please??

Cheers,

Hugh






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