Re: Goodbye to Joe Freemen

[ermadog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Travis Fast wrote:

> So good old Joe was kicked eh!  Offended the list members, eh!  Had the
> wrong tone did he?

It wasn't just a matter of "wrong tone". It was a matter of recklessness.
Reckless in the sense of saying things that could get people killed.
Saying things that could get marxmail charged under the new repressive
laws of the American, Canadian, and Australian governments.

As I pointed out before, it is one thing to characterize a person's
position as reflecting closeted homophobia, Stalinism/Trotskysim/Maoism,
the viewpoint of British intelligent services, or fascist literary themes.
It is something else to dismiss a person's *entire* politics on the basis
of alleged bias in one position held by that person. It is something else
again to charge that person with the errors/crimes of the school of
thought reflected in the alleged bias (logical errors: ad hominem, guilt
by association and poisoning the well).

It is possible to defend oneself against allegations of bias: cite and
analyse your own *offending* words and compare that with the known tenets
of the *offensive* source of bias. To drag other offenses of the bias
source into the discussion is merely a red herring intended to obfuscate
discussion, is counterproductive, is a waste of everyone's time, and is a
costly waste of bandwidth.

It is not possible to defend oneself against charges that one is
*secretly* an agent of the source of bias. The untestability of such
charges provides the deadly logic of witch hunts: the irrationality of the
charges makes everyone vulnerable to prosecution; and the seriousness of
the charges leaves everyone open to vigilante action on the part of anyone
with an axe to grind. Witch hunts by the state are something to which
every Marxist is vulnerable; I should expect every Marxist to understand
the dangers.

When Joe made charges about the sexual practices of his respondents, he
may have been leaving them open to criminal investigation, since these
practices are still illegal in 20 or more of the states in America, and
probably in other  countries as well. This was irresponsible.

When Jim Craven resorted to ethnic slurs and gender-based slurs in his
attacks on my non-existent position on native spirituality, he left
himself open to charges under Canada's hate crimes legislation, putting
his border-crossing in jeopardy, and also leaving marxmail open to
charges. Since this is a criminal matter, charges can be laid by *any*
third party, not just the individual under attack, because in criminal
matters, it is the Crown who is considered to be the injured party.

Do I need to remind everyone about the little grey men reading our mail?

Additionally, our Irish comrades have been reminding us that careless
phrases can leave people open to sectarian violence and retribution.

I, too, have valued the participation of both these comrades, and have
been corresponding with Joe offline. Jim, of course, won't talk to me.

I suggest that marxmail needs a moderator who can actually moderate. Louis
Pr. is obviously too valuable as a resource, with his apparently
encyclopedic knowledge of the history of marxist debates, and has other
pressing responsiblities. Xxxx Xxxxxx is one of the few people who
actually knows Marxist economics. Jim Farmelant posts too infrequently for
me to have an opinion on his off-list responsibilities. Les Schaffer also
seems pretty busy.

Any thoughts? My suggestion is predicated on the assumption that the
intent of theoretical discussion is to actually resolve differences.
Moderation should have the intent of keeping conversation productive.

I am not opposed to colourfull language. It is the metier of the working
class.

Joan Cameron



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.