Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 00:56:38 -0400
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: Re: M-TH: Purge step 6.7.2


Replying to Hugh Chris B writes ..

A lot of which can be supported on the new list.. But this talk of 
"Dogmatism" is about as stupid as my suggestion of getting rid of "wackos" 
is. Who deciides what is dogmatism and what is "Marxism..."

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki
>
>
>Just like at school, no easy tricks to keep the kids in order!
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>I think that is right: there is no one method. It requires a range of
>vigilance, technical expertise, people willing to investigate serious
>concerns off list, without promoting an endless flame war on list,
>confrontation on list that is as objective as possible, does not overstate
>the case on the evidence available, and asks the subscriber no more than
>would be asked of any subscriber.
>
>Above all a general atmosphere on the lists that criticisms or
>confrontations concentrate on issues of principle or practice rather than
>attack the person, however strong the criticism of the person may be. 
>
>To the extent that infection with this political virus has been salutary it
>has reinforced these points. That also goes for idle gossip off list about
>how terrible x or y is rather than raising the issues on list for x or y to
>have a chance to correct them, if they are important, or shut up if they
>are not.
>
>We are learning the hard way, not through dogmatic rote learning, that
>something like a comradely style of criticism and self-criticism, *even
>with those about whom we have the gravest political suspicions* is the
>safest method of ensuring that we minimise the damage that can be caused by
>disruption, and maximise the possibilities for serious constructive sharing
>of information and thrashing out what the real issues are behind subjective
>differences.
>
>The overwhelming majority of subsribers in effect do this. The minority who
>post vigorously  about issues of conflict need to remember consciously to
>try to pose their criticisms in as objective terms as possible, to avoid
>splitting over personalities, or into subgroups.
>
>That is why for example, although I think marxism-space must in the right
>context clarify the historical lessons of the past, I also agree with a
>recent remark of Hugh's to the effect that we should not concentrate on
>fighting the battles of the past but, presumably, decide whether we can
>cooperate in fighting the battles of the future.
>
>With a clearer collective focus, disruption by political viruses can be
>minimised, and to the extent that we are infected, they will be
>indistinguishable from commensals.
>
>Chris Burford
>
>London.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>



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