Re: moderation, list purpose

[Louis N Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis: This has been very much on my mind lately. I am coming around to
the opinion that, despite Jon Beasley-Murray's noble intention to combine
activism and theory in the same place, there are really two lists
functioning as one.

The list that I am interested in discusses Yugoslavia, fascism, etc. Then
there is another list that was much more in evidence two years ago that
catered to the needs of Marxist scholars like the two Hans from University
of Utah.

This latter list in a sense is a study group on Capital, Grundrisse,
Dialectics of Nature, Critique of Political Economy, etc. It is the sort
of place that all sorts of abstruse discussion of Bhaksarian ontology and
Postponean numerology can be enjoyed.

However, when somebody who is an activist or a trade-unionist first makes
their entrance on the list and sees nothing but Juan Inigo battling with
Hans Ehrbar over the meaning of ground rent, this can be a little
indimidating. Trust me.

Now at the Brecht Forum in NY, there are study circles on Grundrisse,
etc. that are taking place all the time. (I would never take one myself,
since I have much better things to do with my time.) There are also
classes on Labor Struggles. Fine, both discussions are taking place to the
benefit of the students and the teachers.

The problem is that if you try to have both discussions in the same
classroom, there would be cacophony. That is what goes on in this list.
Two entirely different types of discussion are going on in the same
place. So you have professors who contribute to "Research In Political
Economy" deleting all those bothersome messages on the civil war in
former Yugoslavia in order to find that one intriguing message on ground
rent. Or, you have trade unionists deleting all those bothersome messages
on Bhaskar's quadruple dialectistical transmutation of nature in order to
check out discussion on the French strikes.

Perhaps the answer is to spawn a new list: something like Levy's OPE-L,
but open to the unwashed masses. That list should be moderated. It should
advertise itself in the following manner:

Marxist Philosophy and Economics: A mailing list dedicated to in-depth
study of key works by Marx, Engels and others that focuses on their
relationship to broader philosophical and economic questions. It grapples
with the problem of value. It attempts to understand the Hegelian
problematic implicit in Capital and the Dialectics of Nature... (You get
the picture, bet you didn't know I could sling the bullshit around like
this.)

Needless to say, you can belong to both lists. I expect that someone like
Chris Burford would definitely be interested in both. Myself, I wouldn't
go near anything connected with theory. It makes me break out in hives.
But let's stop kidding ourselves. We have two clashing political cultures
and the sooner we face this, the better off we'll be.


On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Lisa Rogers wrote:

> There is no requirement that every conversation on this list be
> "inclusive" of every sub-er.  I could feel "excluded" by many topics
> in which I have no interest, I suppose, but I don't.  There is way
> too much here to even be able to keep up with the stuff that I _am_
> interested in sometimes.
>
> I have non-moderatively screamed bloody murder about this many times
> since my own arrival and installation as grand high meaningless
> poo-bah.
>
> I have found nothing more annoying than those who have come onlist to
> blast us, variously and collectively, for not being "marxist" enough.
>
> 'Is there no talk of activism?'  Go ahead and talk.
>
> 'Is there any Althusser allowed?'  Go ahead and talk.
>
> 'Could studies of foraging behavior be relevant to marxism?'  Go
> ahead and talk, and see if anybody cares to talk with you.
>
> 'I don't know much.'  Maybe you will learn something.
>
> I say again, this list is intended for a _broad_ discussion of
> relations of marxian thought to other areas.
>
> "Inclusivity" is a principle I hold dear, but it may well take the
> form of 'including' or 'allowing' stuff that I don't personally want
> to get in the middle of, or could not care less about, or just don't
> have time for.
>
> If I'm curious enough, I'll ask a question.  If not, I'll ignore it.
> If I don't think it's reasonably or at even remotely related to the
> topic or purpose of the l*st, I'll say so.
>
> No one can make this list into their own image, and no one should
> try.  Or else, as the Chegitz says, a/nother comod just might write
> you a note!
>
> Lisa
>
> Louis wrote:
> But discussion of [snip] extremely obscure and technical topics is
> what confronted me as soon as I got on the Marxism l*st and  what I
> screamed bloody murder over. This type of discussion excludes
> someone like myself. I totally resent the implication, also, that
> political  activists or even people with an generalized, intellectual
> bent are  interested in this type of discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
>


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------