It would be a sad day, the day pen-l dies. It has been the most lively cyber space for years now, and I don't see any reason for it to stop doing so. However, over the years somepeople like myself have been contributing much less than what we used to. There could be several reasons for that. In my case, there has been personal problems (job related stress) as well as tendency of many people to suggest that pen-l is not a space for serious academic debate. The beauty of pen-l in the old days was that one could talk about anything and expect a long and fruitful debate to ensue, including the most abstract issues as value theory etc. But what I think 'Louis Proycetization' of pen-l has done is to discourage theoretical debates completely, and made people like us less interested in initiating discussions. Let's face it, most of the subscribers of pen-l are academics (including Ph.D students), and we like to go beyond journalistic level and think abstract issues. Serious discussion on theoretical issues should not be discouraged. However, it should not be simply a list for abstract theoretical issues either. I have not joined either Louis P's or Doug H's lists. Though I'm thinking of checking out Doug's list but don't know how to join it. In anycase, i have just completed a critical review of Ellen Wood and John Bellamy Foster's edited book, 'In Defense Of History Marxism and the Postmodern Agenda'. I'll be happy to put this review on pen-l if people would be interested in discussing it. It would reignite the discussion on Marxism and Postmodernism, and hopefully most of the Doug's listmembers including Doug himself would become active participants again. What do you think? Cheers, ajit sinha At 10:26 18/05/98 -0700, you wrote: >[I am cross posting this message to pen-l, lbo-talk and marxism because >pen-l has been incommunicado for a while. Please post any responses to >pen-l and do not clutter the other lists with this thread] > >For more than a decade, pen-l has been growing in terms of the number of >participants and the quality of the postings. The list has given me >great gratification. I have met wonderful people. I have even had the >privilege to spend time with some of you because of our acquaintance on >pen-l. I understand that others have had similar opportunities. > >Over the last few weeks, our system has been down on week ends because >of upgrading. This down time has made the list more sporadic. [The >good news is that our software has been upgraded and I think that we >will be able to fix our headers problem so that you will be able to >identify the source of our messages.] > > >In addition, two of our most valued participants, Lou Proyect and Doug >Henwood, have begun lists of their own. Both of these lists overlap >with the purpose of pen-l. As a result of the down time and the >popularity of the two new lists, a lot of energy on pen-l has >dissipated. > >I want to know what direction we should take. On another list, Barkley >Rosser has said, and not without reason, if the new lists, kill pen-l, >so be it -- the logic of the marketplace of ideas. Off line, Jim Devine >told me that he thought that pen-l serves a different purpose, creating >a different type of space than the other lists. > >I thought that I should pose the idea to you and to cross post this >message to the two other lists in order that we can decide what course >of action to take. If the collective wisdom turns out to be that we >should let pen-l expire, then in advance I want to take this opportunity >to thank each and every one of you for making pen-l the valuable >experience that it has been. > >If some of you from the other lists want to try out pen-l, you are >welcome to do so. Just send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >sub pen-l YOUR NAME > >-- > >-- >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >Chico, CA 95929 > >Tel. 916-898-5321 >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
