Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 11:57:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: fragmentation On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Gerald Levy wrote: > The *myth* that m2 is a "theory" list vs. m1 which is a marxism list was > advanced by the "activist" *opponents* of m2 from m1. I think Jerry gets at the nub of why the spoon collective decided that marxism2 should go. > We are *not* only a "marxism-theory" list and I deeply resent it when the > "marxists" from m1 continue to perpetuate this historical-revisionist > slur. Clearly, after all, Jerry is not against theory or marxist theory per se. Suggesting the this is a theory list is only therefore a "slur" when marxism2 is seen in opposition to marxism[1], and the two are said to be mutually exclusive (and thus marxism would be all the marxism2 is not--dead rather than alive; activism rather than theory; real people rather than academics--take your pick or invent other oppositions). It is this supposed relation of mutual exclusivity that has haunted both marxism and marxism2. marxism2--or a list like marxism2--needs a more positive identity. Moreover, and this is the fundamental point, we hope the marxism space to have a completely different structure from the previous arrangement of (the two) marxism lists. If before we had two opposed (pseudo)totalities, we now want a wide range of different, overlapping, mutually crossfertilizing, areas for discussion. Which is why, by the way, we don't see this process of fragmentation. Fragmentation implies some pre-existent, primordial totality, like some vase, which is now in pieces each of which is unique, has a specific place and fits snugly next to another piece in some ideal reconstruction. But marxism is not like that, the internet is not like that (oh, and life is not like that, so far as I can see). We want these new lists to be overlapping, with different focuses but with people wandering between them, joining one here as it appears or becomes lively, leaving another there as it gets out of hand or as real-life commitments call. No list can claim to say it all--which is why marxism is also going; we don't want a list with a claim to comprehensiveness, against which all others would be judged as lacking (as merely "theoretical" or "academic" for example). Oh, and one more thing on fragmentation: these lists are already fragmented, open, mutating things. People come in and out, some delete selectively, others will only read the odd thing or two, others read everything voraciously; people stop paying or start paying attention in fits and starts (and yes, still, still some kind of open, flexible communities are created)... we want to reflect all these processes. Finally (but once again): we do not want the discussions (and the people) >from marxism2 to go away. Which is why we've been asking people the following question, which I ask again: what is it *postively* that marxism2 does (for you) or could do. Can you put that in words, make it a proposal, and then lets run with it. Or make several proposals and let's run with them. I think it would be good to have a marxism-theory list anyhow, if this bears fruit. If, however, anyone thinks that something in the marxism2 equation will drop out as a result of that, please (Jerry, whomever) say what it is, and we'll try to think of a way to prevent that from dropping out. But in any case, everyone on this list knows how to subscribe to a list (otherwise they wouldn't be there). If the number one concern is not to lose this community (and I understand that), then if a proposal is made by someone or some people from this list for a new list in the spirit of marxism2, then I'm sure that everyone would quite easily be able to transfer. It's not so hard... > Jerry Take care Jon Jon Beasley-Murray Literature Program Duke University jpb8-AT-acpub.duke.edu http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005