[Marxism] a few thoughts on flaming and so forth

[Steve Gabosch <sgabosch@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fred complained last week that I don't reveal my own thoughts here on
Marxmail due to my "self-imposed moral discipline" to only repeat SWP
positions.  But I really do have many thoughts of my own (despite what Louis
believes about people in the SWP orbit not thinking for themselves) and I
would like to share some of them, if I may, especially after reading some of
the flaming toward Rachel earlier today, which gave me plenty to think about.

On flaming:    A favorite phrase associated with Lenin: "patiently explain."
 But what does one do when Marxmail colleagues - (by participating together
on this discussion list, "colleagues" of a sort we are, for better or for
worse) - lose their cool and begin to flame?  What do we do when others lose
sight of the heart of civil discussion - mutual tolerance - and succumb to
the seductions of that accomplice of intolerance, personal attack?  Rachel
showed us how earlier today - ignore the nonsense, stick to the issues, and
once again, patiently explain.  (And may I add an addendum to Lenin's
advice: "patiently query.") This is no guarantee of being "right" of course.
 But it can help one get there.  Besides keeping the discussion focused,
following this advice also allows oneself to listen and learn and develop
much more acutely than otherwise.  In my case, Walter has been giving me
some practice in doing this, and Lenin's advice works.  I have learned and
will continue to learn from Walter, but doing so would be more difficult if
I focused on the more personal side of his polemics, especially when he
leans on the capslock key.  I don't see Walter as characterizing *me* when
he attacks ("scolds" as Louis puts it) - I see him as making statements
about *himself* and how he *feels*.  The scolding isn't about me, it's about
him.  In other words, what Walter says about me is not my problem.  I am
interested in Walter's ideas, including what makes him upset, so I focus on
listening to him and learning what I can - and eventually, when I feel it is
my turn to speak, patiently explaining what I think.  As I said, Rachel
offered a perfect example of doing just that in her earlier response.
Whatever her positions are on Iraq or anything else - I actually don't know
her positions, she has said (or I have noticed) too little for me to
understand them enough - her ability to patiently explain and query is
something we can all learn from.  We can't stop colleagues or anyone from
flaming or otherwise lapsing into intolerance - but we can find ways to be
tolerant of it.  "Patient explanation" is one strategy to consider.  I am
with Lenin in recommending it.

On internet discussions:    Louis has pointed out some of the odd features of
internet discussions with the joke "no one knows you're a dog on the
internet."  Apparently, Louis got his dogs mixed up (despite his attempt at
internet sleuthing) and barked about Rachel maybe being someone else, a
little incident that Rachel also handled brilliantly.  But worse than not
being able to be perfectly certain about which dog this or that writer
really is, the mode of the internet discussion list presents another
frequent problem - we can mistake a bark for a growl, a growl for a yelp, a
yelp for a whine, and so forth and so on.  In other words, we can easily
misinterpret the meanings of messages, and not even be aware we have gotten
them wrong.  Flame wars not infrequently have such an origin.  We don't just
not know for sure what dogs we are dealing with, we aren't necessarily
getting what they are barking and fussing about.  So we can add still
another addendum to Lenin's advice: patiently listen; patiently read.

On tense Marxmail discussions:    Louis has the difficult but necessary job
of moderating a discussion list that includes numerous Marxist and other
radical thinkers that are influenced by historically opposed political
tendencies and conflicting social class pressures.  In tense discussion
areas, when discussion begin to generate difficult negative emotions,
whatever his stated reasoning to curtail such discussions might be, I think
Louis's intuitions are generally good about maintaining Marxmail as a viable
discussion list.  In agreeing with Walter last weekend that there has been
"no progress," I think Louis is suggesting the tension mounting around
discussions regarding the SWP needs relief.  I respect this.  Fred pointed
out today that I am an "outsider," given my sympathies toward contemporary
SWP positions.  Clearly, few that post on Marxmail agree with me (so far) on
the big questions like Iraq, or even sympathizing with contemporary SWP
positions on any topic, so in that sense I am indeed an outsider.  As I see
it, this controversial minority-view status I hold gives me a special
responsibility to follow Louis's guidelines about helping to keep
discussions within acceptable stress limits.  It is not at all my intention
or desire to find a way to break up this discussion list, which such
tensions and stresses can contribute to.  If it was a choice between
creating such stresses and my not posting, I would not post.  I consider
participating on this list a privilege, not a right, and I thank Louis and
Les, Hans and others that make this list possible for allowing me to be a
guest.  It is not my intention to abuse this privilege or undermine the hard
work they do to keep this list going.

On misportraying positions of others on Marxmail:    I prefer that people
not do this.  I am perfectly fine with sharp criticisms of actual positions
of the SWP or anyone else - I learn much from such criticisms.
Misportrayals, on the other hand, create a different kind of trouble that I
do have a problem with.  However, there is no way to avoid or prevent
misportrayals.  They come with free speech.  All I can ask is for people to
tolerate "misportrayals" being answered with (intended) clarifications -
just another exercise of free speech.  This principle I hold of opposing
misportrayals applies to all groups and any individual.  For example, if I
understood Rachel's positions on Iraq, and saw that someone was
misrepresenting her positions, I would speak up, even if I disagreed with
Rachel's views.  She deserves to have her actual, not imagined,
positions examined.  I am totally OK with a sharp criticism of any actual
position, whether I agree with the criticism or not.  It is the misportrayal
of a position as a way to argue with it that I object to on principle.


Thanking all again for the privilege of posting to Marxmail,
~ Steve Gabosch


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism