Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:47:31 +0100 From: James Heartfield <James-AT-heartfield.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: My protest to the moderator was Re: M-I: Cheap Trotsko.. In message <3.0.16.19971014182903.1ab7238a-AT-pop.qut.edu.au>, Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au> writes >>Comrades Green and Heartfield have run up the banner of free speech. >Comrade Godena has wrapped himself in that flag too. How charmingly >liberal of them. Or should that be 'how hypocritical of them'? Why the sarcasm? Is it so extraordinary that someone should think that free speech is a good idea? In what sense hypocritical? Are you saying that I don't really believe in free speech, I'm just pretending I do. To what end? To characterise the IRA as fascist (one of the many accusations that you toss around)? Well, most of the time I have ever spent in police cells was for demonstrating in favour of the IRA, but I do know that not everybody agrees with that view, and that some quite intelligent people make the mistake of equating republican nationalism with British nationalism. What should I do? Refuse to talk to them? In 1988 I was on a demonstration against British rule in Ireland. It wasn't the most popular cause in the country at the time but I thought it was important and acted as a steward. As they had done the previous year, the police organised a provocation hand in hand with the British National Party. The police withdrew, the BNP attacked and when we fought back the police weighed in to make arrests. I was taken after I tried to stop a police officer breaking into the march, and charged and convicted of assault. When we fought the convictions we fought them on the basis of freedom of speech. We weren't being ironic of hypocritical. I really believe that the best way of changing peoples' minds is by trying to talk to them, or demonstrating, or any other way of convincing them of the force of your convictions. In all my life I have never known anyone to adopt a point of view because they were disciplined. Falsely (maliciously?) Gary attributes the point of view to me ('our free speechers)that Castro is a fascist. Now I have never said anything here about Castro. And I don't mind saying that I am no admirer of his regime (though his contribution to international solidarity puts him head and shoulders above the official Stalinist bloc in my view). But when you caricature any criticism of Castro as being akin to the CIA aren't you making the same mistake as those who say Castro is a fascist. Surely it is possible to criticise Castro, even criticise Castro wrongly, without being a member of the Central Intelligence Agency? This all smacks of the arguments that you used to hear about not being allowed to criticise the Soviet Union without giving succour to the enemy. Any moral restriction on our opinions and thinking is bound to arrest the progress towards the truth. Or to put it another way, if you are confident of your analysis, you will welcome the chance to defend it against less considered opinions. >Comrade Heartfield says he has no commitment to the list either. Well >Comrade all I can say is that it shows. > Please, feel free to be rude. >This list will not survive without some kind of commitment. The very >minimum is that the moderators should act as a group. They should come to >a decision about crossposting Adolfo. I would urge them as a group to >discipline Godena and to force him to stop this practice. The problem here is that you want the list to act as if it were a democratic centralist organisation. But joining the list costs nothing. It makes no demands on its subscribers. It has no disciplinary powers, and represents no common committment. Consequently there is no basis for any enforcing of the content of people's views, apart from the common etiquette of not being a nuisance - which is to say a largely formal rule. > >Now of course if Comrade Adolfo were to subscribe then that would be an >entirely different matter. But I fear our free speechers are not able to >make this distinction. I think this is your strongest point and I agree that it is a bit sly to be contributing to the list but not subscribe. If I ever meet Adolfo I shall tell him so ... But if Louis Godena wants to post Adolfo's contributions, that's his business: In formal terms it is just the same as quoting someone. Of course, everyone else is welcome to draw the obvious conclusions, that this is a dogmatic, one-sided debate that has no great merit in it. But that is not half as bad as the conclusions that you would draw from the content of Adolfo's posts. And that's what's so great about free speech. It is not just the freedom of the speakers to rant on about bugger all, but the value it places on the listeners ability to decide for themselves what is important, interesting and correct. Fraternally -- James Heartfield --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005