Usually the racism attack has been clearly attributable to political differences, since with the exception of two or perhaps four people of similar political leanings, nobody has seen racist inferences in any posts. Furthermore, this same posture is taken as a license by some to issue perfectly bigoted generalizations about other groups.
It is not coincidental that most of those so offended or concerned are not economists but are more-or-less exclusively burdened with ideological agendas. These folks would be tolerable, and sometimes interesting, but for the 'model of war' they are packing.
This odious exploitation of an important issue helps to make the charge of racism practically worthless. You cry wolf often enough, and nobody pays attention to real wolves. It also makes a serious discussion of race impossible, since any sincere expression of views is discouraged by the threat of personal denunciation. All this is not as big a problem as racism itself, but it certainly makes dealing with racism more difficult. It's the cyber-edition of the Tawana Brawley episode.
The generalizations about neo-classical economists and liberals have not been applied to literal individuals here, but they have been ascribed to the personal character of such persons. As such, their implications are clear enough. Not too long ago, Patrick Bond provided a distressingly long list of South African radicals who had sold out under the new regime. In the same vein, the shortcomings of communists in power are plain. This is not to imply any relative impurity on the left, only to say that generalizations can be empty things and humility can be a good thing.
What's implicit ought to be made explicit: the attacks are an effort at inter-personal manipulation, emotional blackmail, and intellectual intimidation. Or else they are simply an expression of personal frustration or rage over one's powerlessness regarding other, greater demons.
Anybody with experience in radical politics can recognize these hoary efforts to create some kind of group discipline out of a disorderly contention over ideas. And anyone with experience in real politics (radical and otherwise) can see how pathetic the enterprise is. It's campus & cult stuff--you're in our group and you're cool, or you're shit. It's symptomatic of the marginalization of the U.S. left in the real world, where hair-trigger accusations of racism or moral condemnation never get out of the starting gate, as far as the general public is concerned. This reflects well on the public.
Naturally a mailing list ought to be a hospitable place for vigorous, even furious debate about ideas, with a minimum of aspersions on the personal character of others, directly or indirectly. One of the wonders of this, frankly, is Mike Perelman's tolerance of and even light, occasional dalliance in the most bitter language pertaining to those classified by some as unradical, and his contrary posture regarding much milder stuff coming from the other direction. I appreciate his labors in running the list, but I have to question his exercise of impartiality. This was obvious in the past re: LP vs. GL, though since then LP has more-or-less mellowed out.
"If you don't like it, why not leave?" some might ask. Well fuck you. If you don't want a diverse list, you can leave. To me PEN-L is a bit like a public utility; no narrow point of view has exclusive rights to it.
I have lately avoided directly engaging others who can't hold up a civil exchange and will continue to do so, but I have to say the general climate on PEN-L is deteriorating. It's not enough to warn people who directly address or refer to other individuals. If this is not going to be a nasty, sectarian M-L list, moderation has to be more moderating.
Max Sawicky