Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:45:32 +0200
Subject: Re: separate M1 and M2


Lisa writes on m2:

>I've been thinking, and talking with Spoon, and I suggest that M1 and
>M2 are separate lists and should be treated that way.  Therefore, no
>cross-posting between M1 and M2.  Well, sure, some small
>announcements of general interest perhaps, but not duplicate
>conversations.  That would sort of negate the creation of _another_
>list, wouldn't it?
>
>Any reasonable persuasive objections?  I suggest one day comment
>period before technical backup may be implemented if needed.

She earlier wrote:

> Here's my summary of what many on this list want that
>I think is different from M1, some of which you have mentioned or
>discussed already:
>
>Creative application, interdisciplinary, non-sectarian, social
>totality.

Here's another couple of points, before the witching hour comes and I'm
turned into a pumpkin ...

1. About cross-posting. Are cc's counted as cross-posting, or merely cc's
to, say, M1 or Adolfo (or any other persona non grata)? Cc's to private
e-mail addresses are OK but not cc's to other mailing lists or newsgroups?
Or are separate postings of the same message going to be counted as
cross-posting? Or postings of the same content?

1b. Will *any mention at all* of m1 be considered as grounds for a warning
and subsequent exclusion if persisted in? Or is mention of m1 accompanied
by some suitable expression of loathing (like Jerry's 'undead' cracks) good
form?

2. Re: Creative application. I think a good case can be made out for the
creative nature of Adolfo's, Mao's and Stalin's applications of Marxism.
They take what they see as useful in the prevailing circumstances, discard
what they see as irrelevant and create their own bits as the need arises.
Perhaps the criterion was intended to read *good* creative application? In
that case, what's *good*?

3. Re: interdisciplinary. Do sociology, politics and economics count? I
think the above three manage on that, Stalin even did a job on linguistics.

4. A more general point. How many of the criteria need to be fulfilled to
make a posting kosher?

5. Re: non-sectarian. This is interesting. Who decides? When does a view
officially endorsed by a party become sectarian? When does a view held by
an individual and not officially endorsed by a party become sectarian? (My
fellowship in reason and solidarity, your sect?) I'd like a definition of
sectarian, please, or non-sectarian, just tell me what they're supposed to
mean, so I have a fair chance to know what's happened when someone's warned
and excluded as a sectarian.

6. Re: social totality. Way to go! - except will anybody be warned and
excluded for *not* addressing social totality?

7. I don't think any of these points were really relevant in the run-up to
m2. I think the criterion was *non-pain-in-the-ass*. Trouble is, nobody's
defined a pain-in-the-ass. A measurable aspect of pain-in-the-assism is
volume. Also a mountain of quotes and a molehill of comment. Disagreement
is qualitative, however. Do *consensus* and *agreement* come into the
criteria for m2? Where are the bounds of civility set, for who, by who?

All of this might seem like nit-picking or deliberate provocation. It
isn't. It's applying part of a stanza from Bert Brecht's 1932 poem, A
Thinking Worker's Questions (my translation):

        Don't be afraid to ask about it, comrade.
        Don't let them talk you into anything
        - See for yourself!
        If you don't know it yourself
        - You just don't know it.  ...
        Check the bill
        - You'll be paying it.
        Put your finger on every item
        - Ask: How did that get here?

Cheers,

Hugh




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