Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 06:45:05 -0600
From: Hans Ehrbar <ehrbar-AT-marx.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: Review of Hans's moderation principles



When I started as a moderator, I intended to have a discussion with my
co-moderators.  But what I was trying to do was too controversial,
they thought I was too easy on Adolfo.  I could not get consensus.  I
also had offered to resign if I would be asked but they did not take
me up on this either.  Due to this stalemate I did not have anyone to
discuss my moderation strategies with.  This is why this report is a
little late; it took me a few days to re-discover from what I did or
decided not to do during that time what my underlying principles were.


Part of my vision for this list was formed by the glorious past of the
marxism list, and part goes back to my time with the Communist Labor
Party.  I knew how isolated a communist cadre can be; only exposed to
the theory of one's own organization, with no true discussion within
the party and no possibility to go beyond.  I wanted the marxism list
to be the environment in which these people can get together, share
experiences, and develop their views.


In my early programmatic declarations I stated that the list should be
a transmission belt which makes the theory worked out by intellectuals
and academics available to the activists.  I thought the list should
spend part of its time with issues brought up by our activist
comrades, but most of its time with the development of theoretical
issues.


This did not happen and in hindsight I must say that I was naive and
condescending.  It was the image of the theoretician getting knowledge
out of the library and transferring it to the practitioners.  It gives
the theoreticians a privileged position and begs the question: how
does the knowledge get into the library?


Of course, not every practice generates knowledge, but revolutionary
practice is a very special kind of practice, which is no less pregnant
of new knowledge than the natural scientist's experimental activity
is.  If the experience and the thinking of dozens of activists is
condensed in a written form as it has been in the marxism list, then
this is like the raw log of an experiment in physics or chemistry, the
scientific evaluation of which will push the boundaries of knowledge
outward.  We need to keep this in mind; we do not want our plans for
marxism space be thwarted by an erroneous conception of the
theory-practice relationship.  The issues that arose naturally from
what the activists brought to the marxism list often pointed up errors
and flaws in our theoretical understanding.  In my view, the flaws of
marxism itself stared at us in the list, disguised as impasses in the
list discussion.  This is an argument for not over-regulating the list
but allowing crises and deadlocks to happen.  They are the warning
signs indicating where our theory needs development.



One often-heard thought is: since this list is so important, we must
make sure that it is not sabotaged or clogged up by "mindless drivel".
Therefore the desire to purge the "parasites" and "non-contributors"
in order to get a clean list.  This fascist outlook misses an
important point: the list can only be derailed by an intruder if the
intruder knows something the list does not know.


Let me give an example.  The reason why this list has had very few
visits by crazies or fanatical anticommunists is that we can tell them
off any minute.  They cannot catch us off-guard by telling us
something which we are overlooking, but on the contrary, anyone
attacking the list from a primitive anticommunist angle, or using the
list as a transference object, will be told so much about him or
herself in such a short time from so many different sources, that all
they can do is go home and lick their wounds.  This is the practical
enactment of the superiority of marxist science over bourgeois
ideology.


If our own comrades therefore irritate us then this means they know
something we don't know.  Otherwise, we could put them into their
place in a second.  This is another argument in favor of openness,
against a common-sensical or even consensual censorship of the list.


I also think that openness is an ethical requirement.  The list
must be open to every honest and determined marxist.  We cannot chase
away the "unimportant" marxists in order to make room for the
"important" ones.  Our struggle requires that every single one of us
gives everything, and therefore every single one of us should be taken
very seriously.


It should also not be forgotten that the function of this list is not
only to create new theory but also the get to know the list members.
Most of those speaking up in this list have been and/or can be
expected to play significant roles in real class struggles.  Due to
this list, we know them much better now, their weaknesses and their
strengths.


So far I have basically argued that all the contradictions in the list
are contradictions "within the people" and that it is in the interest
of all of us to let these contradictions run their course.  The list
can confront us with difficult puzzles, but the list has the resources
to resolve these contradictions and will benefit from doing so.


There are only very few instances where a surgical intervention is
necessary and beneficial.  My biggest oversight, in my view, was that
I did not catch on soon enough regarding the character of the
confrontation with Quispe.  It took me a private briefing by Ken
Campbell to understand what was going on, and then I saw that the
confrontation around the Quispe issue had been poisoning the list for
a long time.  Things which I had considered part of the inevitable
noise on this list were due to deeper and irreconcilable differences.
My speech with the title "how to handle contradictions with police
agents"  was one of my most important interventions as a moderator.
It took me several days to prepare, but I think it served its
purpose well.


Whenever someone called for expulsion of a list member, I as a
moderator have taken notice, and several times I have discussed these
calls in the spoon collective.  There are only three cases when I
thought expulsion might be appropriate.  One was the aol-freak who
treatened Louis Proyect.  Had he not backed down by himself I would
have moved to expel him.  The other is Luis Quispe.  It is not
necessary to expel him because of the list dynamics, he lost his
ability to disrupt the list, but it may be necessary for ethical
reasons: for publicizing private email and, more importantly, for
fingering Callero.  The fact that he translates PCP documents is not a
good reason to tolerate him.


The third person is, I am sorry to say, Rolf Martens.  I am deeply
convinced that Rolf is a well-intentioned and honest comrade.  But he
simply has no sense of what is real and what is not, or what is
relevant and what is not.  Given his complete lack of an inner
compass, it is amazing how coherent he is; he must be extremely smart.
But were this list to continue, I would move that we ask him to
refrain from posting.  Perhaps we can organize a girl friend for him;
she would undoubtedly find that he has a golden heart.  Rolf should
devote his considerable resources to healing himself; although he is
willing and feels the responsibility to contribute to our common
cause, he is, unfortunately, useless and even counterproductive at
this point.  He should consider it his primary revolutionary duty to
take care of the psychic wounds that must have been inflicted on him
at some time in the past.


All these are essayist and fragmentary thoughts, but I do not consider
it worth while dwelling more on something that lies behind us and is
not going to continue.


Hans Ehrbar.


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