> 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 sincerely hope this list continues. Although I don't always
read all of the messages and sometimes lurk on PENL, I find much of the
discussion quite valuable--in term of radical economics, as well as
connected issues of political strategy.
Because of the sectarianism and vindictiveness of Louis Proyect, I
have no interest at all in being on a list that he moderates although I
agree with most of his politics.
I tried and subscribed to LBO-talk for a few days and although I
look forward to receiving the newsletter, Left Business observer, there
seemed to be overkill, too many messages from the same people, on a
relatively small number of topics on the listserv. If Pen-L folded, I
would switch to lBO-talk but really hope that PEN-L remains alive and
thrives. I hope that Doug Henwood continues to post on Pen-L as well as
his own listserv.
> 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.
>
Let us make sure Pen-L doesn't expire.
In solidarity, peter Bohmer
