Is the marxism list dying?

[Hans Ehrbar <ehrbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Some members of the spoon collective say that the marxism list is "in
crisis."  I have always disagreed.  In my view, the chaos on this list
is one of its strengths.  It makes us impervious to attacks which may
bring down other more rigidly organized structures, and opens
possibilities which alternative modes of organization do not have.
Gary's claim that this list is dying however caused me a sleepless
night.  It comes from a comrade whom I hold in high esteem.  And it is
a different diagnosis than the crisis diagnosis.  Let me elaborate.

Despite, or maybe even in part because of, the many strengths of this
list, perhaps this list does not generate enough rewards and
incentives for those who make positive contributions, and does not
know well enough what to do with those who make too much noise, or even
prey on this list, or consciously or subconsciously are out to destroy
it, because the list does not develop in the direction they wish.
Therefore, slowly the substance of this list diminishes, until at some
point there will be a precipitous decline.

If Gary means this by his warning that the list is dying, I think he
has a point.  The marxism list has been losing momentum.  Now I don't
want you to be discouraged.  It is not something to be ashamed of.
Mostly it is due to the tremendous inherent difficulty of the goals
which we have set for ourselves.  And I think we have had some major
achievements.  But we must not fool ourselves about the weaknesses of
this list either.  Soon, other lists will be announced which may draw
some of the best contributors away from this list.  If this list would
be health, it would take that in stride, but under the present
conditions I have my doubts.  Now is the right time to reflect on our
situation.

What can be done about it?  It seems to me that what occasionally
happened is that several list members recognized the danger the list
is in, and decided to put in extra effort to salvage the list.  For a
few days, the list had an uptick, but then it died down again, because
these individuals simply gave more of their time than they could
afford.  It was a somewhat voluntaristic effort.  It was laudable, and
the time they gained has perhaps helped stabilize the list again.  But
did it enable those structures to evolve which are necessary to make
the list viable in the long run, or was it even a deterrent to those
who did not want to see their participation in this list as a
sacrifice?  This is not a rhetorical question.  I do not know.  My
hunch is that it was not damaging, it was at worst useless.  But
certainly it did not *directly* address the issues that need to
be addressed.

Another possibility would be to tempoorartily change the structure of
the list, have a board of moderators who try to "manage" the lst
until the balanced of forces is such that this management is no
longer necessary.  It is an option which I am considering, and maybe
at some later stage we may want to go over to that mode.  Please
think about it if you want to be moderator if it becomes necessary.
Right now I hope we can still do without it.

I have to go.  I have a dentist appointment.  I will be back.


Hans Ehrbar.


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---