Re: moderation, l*st purpose

[glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

I am going to try, once again, to engage Louis and others in what I hope
to be a *serious dialogue* on the issues. To have such a dialogue, we
must sweep away all of the caricatures and distortions. So here goes:

> 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 l*sts
> functioning as one.

Everyone on the l**t knows that there has been an ongoing tension between
those who favor an activist-orientated l**t and those who do not. I
strongly believe that this l**t should have a place for the discussion of
both theory and praxis. Yet, when I (and others) want to discuss theory,
we are told that we are "academics" ad nauseum. This is the first
obstacle to be overcome. *Nobody* that I have heard has said that they
*only* want to discuss theory. When the "activist side" stops trying to
paint us as "academics" we can begin to make progress.

> 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 l**t has evolved, to be sure. It is made and re-made by its
participants. Neither "side", ultimately, is going to be "victorious." To
the extent that we *either* have a "theory-only" or an "activist-only"
l**t, we all suffer, IMHO.

I believe that the insistence that a "marxism" l**T discuss *both* theory
and praxis is in the best tradition of Marx and Marxism.

> 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.

This is a caricacture and it's what makes discussion of this topic
difficult.

> 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.

In the *entire* time that I have been a member, I do not recall *any*
period of time when praxis was *not* discussed. I am quite sure that new
members will see what interests them and participate accordingly *if* we
can create a "culture" that encourages participation on any threads that
members are interested in. As for the new "activist or a trade-unionist"
we have to give these people enough respect to know that they are not
*only* interested in activism or trade unionism. If they are interested in
Marxism, they are interested in theory as well.

> 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 l*st.
> Two entirely different types of discussion are going on in the same
> place.

This can not be avoided. Would anyone really want to be part of this l**t
if there was an attempt to "enforce discipline" on us by agreeing to
discuss *only* certain topics?

 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.

ANOTHER caricature.

> Perhaps the answer is to spawn a new list ...<snip>
> open to the unwashed masses. That list should be moderated. It should
> advertise itself in the following manner:

In time, perhaps, there will be *many* lists on marxism. For *now*, I am
in favor of maintaining *this* list as a home for the discussion of
theory and praxis as it pertains to marxism. The simple *fact* is,
Louis, that the "academics" are *not* going to give up. With each attempt
that is made to make this into an activist-only l**t, we are thrown into
new rounds of flames, distortions, etc. If *you* can't deal with the fact
that this is a l**t on marxism (not a Marxist l**t, as Lisa constantly
reminds us), you should find another home on the Net or start your own l**t.

> Myself, I wouldn't
> go near anything connected with theory. It makes me break out in hives.

Theory is and will remain a component of this l**t. If you can't deal
with that, then .... (see above).

 But let's stop kidding ourselves. We have two clashing political cultures
> and the sooner we face this, the better off we'll be.

It is true that there are competing perspectives on what this l**t should
be. My perspective is as follows:

* The Marxism l**t is a place where there is a discussion of all matters
pertaining to Marxism as it relates to theory and praxis.
Well-intentioned contributions by anyone are welcome.  Please respect the
fact that we are here for different reasons and have different
theoretical and political perspectives. All benefit by an honest attempt
to address the issues.

Jerry


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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