>Why wouldn't I take part in a discussion on marxism-unmoderated? That is a
>no brainer. It is filled with people who operate under party discipline.
>You defend the Democratic Left line, while the 1001 Trotskyites defend
>their own party lines.
Democratic Left no doubt has many failings, but having a line is not one of them. My voice is my individual voice, (as I strongly suspect are all the ultra-leftists on the internet who claim they are in favour of democratic centralism).
It is Louis's failure to deal with arguments on their merits, and to change the terms of debate, misrepresent, or label people into different categories which I think are opportunist tendencies on his part.
Besides, the record of these lists is that they are very difficult for parties that try to maintain a single line on all issues. Look at the split that occurred on Leninist-international. I think that the reason why Louis, who normally loves a contest, will not slug it out on marxism unmoderated is that he does not like the criticisms from Trotskyists setting up the fourth international for the fortieth time, that he is a Menshevik. Which in terms of an individualist approach to discipline, Louis P undoubtedly is. As am I. And what is ironic, almost certainly are they, unless they are automatically their own central committee and approve each post before it is submitted.
I am not against moderated lists, and I think Doug and Louis have done a better job than I expected, but I also think that there is a role for an unmoderated lists where marxists or would be marxists have to defend their ideas alone. What about it Lou? I have to assume your reluctance to face up to their criticisms is because you know logically that you are in fact a Menshevik. I suggest LP moderates his one-sided sectarian attacks on me on LBO talk and accepts my challenge to have it all out on m-unmoderated.
Chris Burford
London.