Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 08:58:32 -0500
Subject: Re: separate M1 and M2


Hugh thinks his objections to cross-posting are persuasive and reasonable. I
think otherwise.

1. It seems to me that Lisa is "in a hurry" because many of us (not just her)
are fed up with introspective discussion of list dynamics, and we would like
to have some minimal and sensible rules in place so we can carry on the
discussions which are the purpose of this list.

2. Hugh had no problem with the cesspool which had become Marxism1, and
thinks that the intellectual equivalent of a constant, endless barroom brawl
is political struggle. Fine: stay there and struggle. If everybody thought
that way, there would be no Marxism2. If you want to be part of both lists,
fine too; nobody has suggested that there is some sort of choice to be made
here, and that we want only the pure. (If I am not mistaken, Rahul is still
subscribed, at least for the moment, to Marxism1.) But what Hugh is doing is
insisting that everyone should accept his view of things (in the name of "an
open, democratic, principled discussion of Marxism!"), and that those of us
who chose to start a different type of discussion should not be able to keep
it from reproducing Marxism1. We don't care whether Marxism1 is a deformed
Marxist list, or a bureaucratic collectivist list, or a state capitalist
list. What we have in common is that we think it is a list which has a
culture which inhibits and prevents free and open discussion, and WE CHOSE TO
BE PART A DIFFERENT CULTURE. (My god, these exclamation points are driving me
to capital letters.)

3. If this list is to have a minimally democratic culture, some elementary
balance must be established between individual and minority rights, on the
one hand, and the common good and majority rule, on the other hand. Marxism1
devolved into a constant screaming match because there were no -- aboslutely
no -- restraints on what an individual could do, regardless of how
deliberately and intentionally destructive it was for the list. We decided,
by our presence here, that we wanted something more than a cyber state of
nature, and we are trying to establish some minimal rules to that end. Note
that this proposed rule does not limit freedom of speech by keeping Hugh or
anybody else from discussing any particular issue or any content; it simply
establishes the most minimal time and place restrictions -- keep M1 in M1;
let us have our own discussions in M2.

4. If someone refuses to respect what is about as fundamental to the group on
this list at this time as one can get -- that we wanted to have a substantive
discussion of Marxism which was not possible on Marxism1 -- then IMHO he/she
should be asked to leave. Every possible red herring can be introduced into
this discussion, but the fact of the matter is no one on this list has
suggested that there be a definition of sectarianism, and that anyone who
falls within that definition should be excluded. All that has been suggested
that the will of the group on this list to have a list separate from
Marxism1, and from the culture which prevents free, open discussion on that
list, be respected.
 
Leo

In a message dated 96-04-05 06:18:29 EST, Hugh writes:

>a) This seems to indicate that the motives behind the new list had nothing
>to do with content. They are more and more being exposed as purely
>organizational, if not merely personal.
>
>b) I still haven't seen a declaration of the character of the list/s that
>distinguishes them in relation to Marxism and its discussion. I don't think
>I ever will.
>
>c) The question boils down to the nature of the sanctions to be invoked.
>Will an explicitly critical attitude to the artificial distinctions being
>instituted with respect to the discussion of Marxism lead to exclusion?
>
>d) Will a desire to pursue a discussion relevant to M1 and M2
>simultaneously in both forums lead to exclusion? For instance in relation
>to Marxist aspects of the value theory, national liberation and
>imperialism, working-class consciousness and organization.
>
>e) Sectarianism has been mentioned as a problem. Will we be given a
>definition, or allowed to discuss a definition, before the concept is
>invoked to exclude people?
>
>f) Why should M2 participants be bothered if the same discussion is being
>carried on in M1? Out of sight, out of mind, surely! If M1 as a forum is
>distasteful and irrelevant, why should anyone on M2 even *care* if some
>parts of a discussion are mirrored on M1?
>
>g) For instance, say I want to discuss aspects of imperialism in relation
>to the collapse of Stalinism in the workers' states. I want the opinions of
>people who are engaged in discussing Marxism. Some prefer M2 as a forum,
>some prefer M1. So do I decide to exclude those potentially interested in
>the other list by making an arbitrary decision to pursue the discussion on
>one list only? This strikes me as Byzantine.
>
>h) For my own part I've added brief statements concerning the relevance of
>some postings for M2. No one else has that I've seen, although the lack of
>clarity concerning what's relevant or not for M2 would make it a reasonably
>empirical way of getting closer to the character of this new list.
>
>
>So. There you have a few objections. I think they're reasonable and
>persuasive, and raise some important issues of principle.
>
>Lisa's in a *big* hurry. I think she's guillotining the discussion. But
>that's apparently her privilege as a member of Spoons. She who pays the
>piper calls the tune, right?
>
>For an open, democratic, principled discussion of Marxism!





     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---