Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 19:47:17 +0200
From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Subject: Re: M2 moderation / meta-discussion


It's been interesting to catch up on the discussion on the character of M2
and its powers of sanction. I've been silent for a few weeks, so I hope
these remarks summarizing my position will be taken in the constructive
spirit in which they're intended.

On the one hand, there's a purpose and policy statement for m2 that
includes the following broad and tolerant agenda:

>Marxism2 is a list for the discussion of marxian-related thought,
>politics, production, action, history, etc.  We emphasize productive,
>creative, non-sectarian, cross-occupational and interdisciplinary
>discussion.  Relations with other liberatory thought is included, and
>interest in historical process, change, transition, and application
>of marxian thought to current problems is strong.
>
>No academic or activist "credentials" are required.  Being a
>"marxist" is not required.  Ordinary respect and courtesy towards
>other list members is expected, although the tone of discussion may
>grow heated.
>
>Marx once called for a 'ruthless critique' which 'neither shirked
>from its results nor from a conflict with the powers that be'.  We
>agree with this, but also believe that in order to develop such a
>critique, and in order to be interesting, creative and stimulating,
>the discussion must allow honest political and intellectual
>differences and new ideas.


Then we've got the list of donts:


>In order to promote and allow discussion,
>the list does not intend to become a vehicle for accusation, threats,
>harrassment or other off-topics.
>
>All posts are distributed to the list without the contents being
>reviewed or approved by anyone, i.e. there is no editor.  As a list,
>we reserve the right to unsub and block out posts from anyone we find
>to be preventing open discussion.  This should be very rare.
>
>Do not send many one-liners, lengthy cross-postings, and lengthy
>quotes left in replies.  Short articles or summaries and references
>to articles which are intended to start a conversation or are related
>to some on-going conversation are welcome.


Then we've got the 'reality':


>No Hugh, [snip] there will be no detailed "statutes" or procedures spelled
>out.  >If I tried to spell out every possible contingency, I'd never get
>to
>actually participate in the list, and no other info sheets for any
>list I've seen does anything like that.
>
>This is not going to be an exercise in the simulation of bourgeois
>democracy.  I have no "power" over life, liberty or property.  It's
>just a discussion list.


and even more 'reality':


>Just in case it was not entirely clear before:
>
>We have had discussion and there is a clear consensus on the issue of
>cross-postings / separate lists. "No cross-posting by cc to M1" was
>certainly clear, but the intent includes "No M1 posts and discussions
>to M2 in any form -- either as a "cc" or simply copied into a new
>post."  If you want to be on both lists, the conversations must be
>kept separate.  If you see something _on_ M1 and want to reply to it,
>reply _only_ on M1, same for M2.
>
>This intention and purpose of the policy is clear. There is really no
>difficulty for individuals acting in good faith to abide by it. There
>is no reason to entertain further discussion about it.  Those who do
>not respect this policy have the rest of cyberspace open to them, but
>not this list.



I'm glad the 'intent' has at last become clear. Hermetic sealing between M1
and M2.

Now, the problem is that this is impossible to square with the broad and
tolerant agenda of the policy statement, as so much of it is identical with
the purpose and policy of M1, and so many of the interests of the
participants are identical.

To give a few recent examples, discussions on Marx's theory of value, on
the transition from capitalism to socialism, and on the solidarity of
workers with academics are all relevant to both m1 and m2. I would
personally feel it was inconsistent and indeed boneheaded to restrict any
of these topics to one or the other forum.

But if in fact it's the case that 'conversations must be kept separate',
and that failure to observe this 'consensus' (by no means unanimous) will
be construed as 'accusation, threats, harrassment or other off-topics' and
as 'preventing open discussion', then we're in for a feast of
misunderstandings.

The hope that 'this should be very rare' has already been exploded.
Conflicts of style were construed as offences worthy of unsubbing two
visible participants in the discussions. No attempt was made to show that
the culprits had in fact been 'preventing open discussion'. No attempt was
made to compare the sins of the culprits with the kind of 'accusations,
threats and harassment' that the alleged causes of the founding of m2, the
PCP crowd, had been indulging in.

No serious attempt was made to raise the discussion to the level of
analysing the actual character of personal and group interaction in
cyberspace in relation to interactions in non-cyber reality. Lisa and Jorn
in particular insisted on using a 'meeting' metaphor, as if list
participants had to wait for permission from the chair before speaking, and
as if their contributions could actually be shouted down. As if everybody
on the list was forced to listen to everything. This is obviously not the
case.

Anyhow, if Robert's contributions aren't an example of 'the tone of
discussion growing heated', what will be? Leo patting Lisa's tummy? This is
not the way to go for 'interdisciplinary', 'non-sectarian', 'ruthless
critiques' that don't shirk 'from a conflict with the powers that be'!!

Remember, on the list, the person with the finger on the zap button, with
the power to unsub, is one of these 'powers that be', like it or not.

There have been several analogies made for m2, like ivory tower and duck
pond, union meeting and so on. Most accurate so far, in relation to the
stylistic requirements that it appears you have to meet in order to stay
subbed, has been the drawing room, where it's bad form to fart, or the dine
and dance club where you get bounced for not wearing a tie. If it was 'just
a discussion list', then the analogy with a wall newspaper would hold and
people would read what they wanted and ignore the rest. But this is
obviously not the way a lot of people view the list.

So much for the metadiscussion.

I have been hissed at by Lisa and several others (a few weeks ago now). I
don't know whether that constitutes a warning or not. I see what I've just
written as a contribution to the discussion on m2, and am at a loss to see
how it could be interpreted as 'preventing discussion', though I am quite
prepared for this construction to be put on it. In the heat of the
discussion I made a rather innocent if sarcastic remark, naming two
archetypal m2 participants. Will this be interpreted as 'harassment,
threats and accusations'?

Will this be enough to get me characterized as a 'hostile hanger-on from
m1' - even though I'm a subscriber to both and see no priority between the
two, and have not the least hostility to the agenda of m2 as far as it
relates to discussing issues related to Marx?

Rahul said something fairly sensible in this connection:

        Since it was all done privately, I have no way of
        knowing how considered a decision this was and how much input there
was
        from l*st subscribers. This is not a decision one person should
have the
        power to make unilaterally. Furthermore, it was my understanding that
        the purpose of making this a moderated l*st was so that we could
        eliminate egregious slandering and nonsense like that of the PCP
gang or
        Elsequin. I'm anything but a fan of boddhisatva and Malecki, but I
think
        neither of them warrant expulsion. It's true that cross-posting in a
        deliberate attempt to undo the separation of the two l*sts should be
        resisted, but aside from this I think we should have very strict
        standards before anyone gets removed.

        It's funny. People like B and M raise the ridiculous cry of censorship
        when that is hardly what any one of us ever intended, so some of us
get
        mad and ... censor them.

Let's hope these discussions, after the necessary corrections, lead to

        'an interesting space for [snip] people to have interesting
        discussion.'

As for 'interesting people' and 'an inviting space', I think that depends
more on the allure of the subjects discussed than on the clothes you wear
while discussing them. I can find someone repulsive as a person, and still
find their contributions stimulating. People can put very good ideas across
in lousy English.

On a final jarring (or shall we say astringent, or satirical?) note, in
relation to Rahul's comment on keeping m1 and m2 from meeting, the
Afrikaans word for 'separation' is -- 'apartheid'.

Cheers,

Hugh






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