Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 17:35:46 +0200
From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Subject: Re: separate M1 and M2


Leo gets specific on the real differences between m2 and m1, for which I
thank him:

> What we have in common is that we think it [m1]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.)
>
>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.

>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.


So the culture in m1 'inhibits and prevents free and open discussion'. And
we want 'a list separate from Marxism1, and from the culture which prevents
free, open discussion on that list'. And culture is defined indirectly as
'minimal time and place restrictions', 'keeping M1 in M1' and having 'our
own discussions in m2'.

In other words, the content doesn't matter, it's the form that counts - the
medium is the message.

Leo, define this 'evil culture' and the way it prevented free and open
discussion on m1. Then it might be possible to guard against its inroads
into m2. What you propose sounds like mere formalism - ban all contact with
m1, as far as I can see. I raise another couple of questions related to
this in a separate posting on this topic.

I think you're fetishizing 'm1 culture' here, and mystifying the whole
character of discussion on the Net. If you want a private discussion club,
go ahead, but if you want a public discussion forum, think twice about the
restrictions you want imposed. There are good discussions (and bad) on m1,
and there are good discussions (and bad) on m2. Most of them connected in
some way with Marxism. Cross-fertilization is essential, putting closed
circle rules in the way of this cross-fertilization is counter-productive.
To me in my darker moments it seems a bit like intellectual apartheid.

You see, I don't care if you choose to sit on your side of the fence and
feel good that there's a fence between yourself and m1. What I care about
is that you won't let me pass letters through the fence, so to speak, or be
present myself on both sides of the fence. I care about what happens on
both sides of the fence, especially since there's no substantive difference
with respect to the topics raised or the perspectives used to deal with
them. What you're telling me, is that, even though you have nothing to do
with m1, and don't care what happens there, you do care if I take a
discussion not just to m2 but also to m1. You have nothing to do with m1,
yet if I conduct a discussion there at the same time as I conduct it on m2,
you'll vote to give me the chop. Or am I misinterpreting? When you say
'keep m1 in m1', does this mean that anybody posting to m1 is undesirable
on m2 by this very fact?

The situation is very Middle Eastern - sell copying machines to x, you
can't sell copying machines to y. Or like the relations between China and
Taiwan. Or between East and West Germany in the days before reunification.

So what material social forces are driving our discussions on Marxism into
such mutually repellent camps?

Thought I'd better ask while the asking's possible.

For an open, democratic, principled discussion of Marxism!

Cheers,

Hugh




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