Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 09:41:40 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: Discrimination and the OPE list


Juan you did aggresively defend the quality of your posts and ability as 
though this should have won you an invitation.  And you are indeed 
questioning the integrity and ability of others (e.g. Keen), whereby you 
suggested that it is a surprise that Keen, and not you, is a member of OPE.

Certainly you have some important points about the challenging academia's 
position on the production of knowledge.  But you seem to exaggerate the 
potential of the internet over-coming this.  Moreover, many of the 
members of OPE had either decided to leave M1 or where in silence; and 
not becuse their ideas where being challenged and their mistakes 
revealed, i think this aspect is what attracted many; but because the 
level of discussion began sinking fast.

It seems quite silly to me for you to suggest that OPE members might not 
be critical of one another (although i don't know this either).  The 
members where indeed the most critical of M1.

However, you are absolutly correct that there is an ideological aspect 
involved here, one that should be challenged. But like you, others too, 
must decide how to confront "political alternatives" in practice.  These 
are very difficult issues.

Moreover, Marxist academics are in the most precarious position, there is 
a desperate need for them to communicate and trade ideas, in an 
enivornment which will allow them to further their thoughts.  Often the are 
not only isolated from one another, but are confronted with hostile 
opposition to there ideas and (academic and concrete!) existence.

> .... the Internet provides us
> with an unprecedented place for the open collective work needed to develop
> the scientific conscience about the historical nature of capitalism and the
> concrete forms through which its necessity to annihilate itself is to be
> realized.

Well, in the sense that we should continue to attempt open forums, i 
would agree, but this should not necessarily negate private 
correspondence and semi-public (closed) discussion.  The alternative has 
been the silence of interesting correspondence by non-sense.  Whereby, we 
need to experiment.  My intention is to remain a member of open forums, 
but there are tremendous barriers and constrainsts which we are confonted 
with.

In this respect, we really need to talk about the direction of M2.  Juan, 
why, have you not been more involved with this?  Your have claimed this is 
your utmost concern, and it would be a benefit for everyone for you to 
involve yourself with this.
 
hans d.


     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---