Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 09:39:54 -0600 (MDT)
From: hans despain <HANS.DESPAIN-AT-m.cc.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: M2


a) There as been quite a bit of discussion concerning the future of M2. What 
   will be its intent and purpose.  It was suggested that M2 has been a bit 
   of a disappointment for some.

   Moreover, there is a need for a moderator.  Jukka, is willing to 
   participate in such a role.  It seems others may be willing to help 
   out with this?

b) One problem with the participation of current discussions may very well 
   be that these issues need to be solved (for example, it has been part 
   of my hesitation in pursuing the MHU thread).

   It seems to me that in one form or another all the recent threads, the 
   limbo of the list's status has been involved in the discussion, or lack 
   there of.

c) i was quite impressed with the reponse to Van's post, especially the 
   new names and voices that emerged...  From his post and the responses 
   to it, it seems to me that there is a great interest in current left 
   issues, along with a particular expressed expectation that members of 
   M2 would like to see meet when signing on to the list.

a, b, and c (above) have my thoughts as follows.  Current list members of 
M2 express the discussions that motivate there interest in subbing to 
the list.  From these posts we can re-construct M2's introduction around 
these themes (maybe with a new name).  [BTW even member with no intention 
in posting, but merely lurking should express their interests].

The idea being that there is already a list structure in place, which 
needs not to be interrupted.  This would make the moderation of this list 
much easier.  Jukka along with others[?] could co-modertor the list (this 
is of course an open question, but this list would be well moderated by 
Jukka, Chris, and Justin for example).

But, i do believe we should have a modertor in place before any problems 
emerge.

Incidently, i am not clear on why Jon says M2 must be replaced?  (i have 
silently been oppossed to complete fragmentation of the marxism lists).

In any event the point is to decide how to re-construct this community 
(hopefully for the better).  Hence, we must decide what exactly is the 
purpose of the list, and request marx-administration to provide the space 
for the list.

M2 is different from (Marxian) "theory" and "philosophy"; its not 
necessarily "general".  It seems to me that there are many people on the 
list that are quite liberal, maybe (non-) (un-) quasi-marxists at 
times.  Such a list has not been requested, this atmosphere is nuturing 
for many discussions.  Giddens writes somewhere that all social theory must 
understand Marx, but must not become dogmatic (he says it much better), 
is this a theme anyone else shares about M2.

Or put a little different, M2 provides a site for critical (post-) 
Marxists and liberal (quasi-Marxists) to have serious discourse with hard 
line "orthodox" Marxists.  The modoration intends to protect such an open 
atmosphere.

Everyone should speak up has Jukka suggests, this means the very active, 
and the very silent.  Spoons is very interested in working with everyone 
in a very Habermasian sense.  We should take advantage of their 
willingness to listen to our requests.

hans d.

[P.S. i promise to return to Marx, Hayek and Utopia]


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