Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 11:57:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: fragmentation


On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Gerald Levy wrote:

> The *myth* that m2 is a "theory" list vs. m1 which is a marxism list was
> advanced by the "activist" *opponents* of m2 from m1.

I think Jerry gets at the nub of why the spoon collective decided that 
marxism2 should go.

> We are *not* only a "marxism-theory" list and I deeply resent it when the
> "marxists" from m1 continue to perpetuate this historical-revisionist
> slur.

Clearly, after all, Jerry is not against theory or marxist theory per 
se.  Suggesting the this is a theory list is only therefore a "slur" when 
marxism2 is seen in opposition to marxism[1], and the two are said to be 
mutually exclusive (and thus marxism would be all the marxism2 is 
not--dead rather than alive; activism rather than theory; real people 
rather than academics--take your pick or invent other oppositions).  It is 
this supposed relation of mutual exclusivity that has haunted both 
marxism and marxism2.

marxism2--or a list like marxism2--needs a more positive identity.  
Moreover, and this is the fundamental point, we hope the marxism space to 
have a completely different structure from the previous arrangement of 
(the two) marxism lists.

If before we had two opposed (pseudo)totalities, we now want a wide range 
of different, overlapping, mutually crossfertilizing, areas for 
discussion.  Which is why, by the way, we don't see this process of 
fragmentation.  Fragmentation implies some pre-existent, primordial 
totality, like some vase, which is now in pieces each of which is unique, 
has a specific place and fits snugly next to another piece in some ideal 
reconstruction.

But marxism is not like that, the internet is not like that (oh, and life 
is not like that, so far as I can see).

We want these new lists to be overlapping, with different focuses but 
with people wandering between them, joining one here as it appears or 
becomes lively, leaving another there as it gets out of hand or as 
real-life commitments call.  No list can claim to say it all--which is 
why marxism is also going; we don't want a list with a claim to 
comprehensiveness, against which all others would be judged as lacking 
(as merely "theoretical" or "academic" for example).

Oh, and one more thing on fragmentation: these lists are already 
fragmented, open, mutating things.  People come in and out, some delete 
selectively, others will only read the odd thing or two, others read 
everything voraciously; people stop paying or start paying attention in 
fits and starts (and yes, still, still some kind of open, flexible 
communities are created)... we want to reflect all these processes.

Finally (but once again): we do not want the discussions (and the people) 
>from marxism2 to go away.  Which is why we've been asking people the 
following question, which I ask again: what is it *postively* that 
marxism2 does (for you) or could do.  Can you put that in words, make it 
a proposal, and then lets run with it.  Or make several proposals and 
let's run with them.

I think it would be good to have a marxism-theory list anyhow, if this 
bears fruit.  If, however, anyone thinks that something in the marxism2 
equation will drop out as a result of that, please (Jerry, whomever) say 
what it is, and we'll try to think of a way to prevent that from dropping 
out.

But in any case, everyone on this list knows how to subscribe to a list 
(otherwise they wouldn't be there).  If the number one concern is not to 
lose this community (and I understand that), then if a proposal is made 
by someone or some people from this list for a new list in the spirit of 
marxism2, then I'm sure that everyone would quite easily be able to 
transfer.  It's not so hard...
 
> Jerry

Take care

Jon

Jon Beasley-Murray
Literature Program
Duke University
jpb8-AT-acpub.duke.edu
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons


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