Lou, I think there are only two fairly small things dividing us here. One concerns tone and the other concerns pre-conceptions as to the content of the labels *people apply to themselves*. The two are inter-related.
The tone I object to is one which presupposes a certain response on the part of readers, and your particular use of "marxism-leninism" (which I more or less agree with) does nothing to moderate that tone: it still comes off as a tone of pre-judgment. (Or, in marxist jargon, of unprincipled criticism, of which all propositions of the form "If the shoe fits, wear it" are instances.)
As to the pre-judgment. I think you will find -- I KNOW you will find because I have worked with many over the years -- that rather large numbers of people who *call themselves* marxist-leninists DO NOT FIT YOUR DEFINITION. Actually, there was a mini-flame war on the old marxism (1) list in which you and I agreed on this if I recall correctly. We were both objecting to the indiscriminate application of the label "stalinist," and I extended that to the principle that *even when people label themselves as stalinists* we should not take that label as giving any necessary information about their substantive politics.
In none of the posts I've directed at you in the last few weeks have I actually challenged your substantive politics. (Any disagreements we have there are rather small.) I have consistently (I hope at least consistently -- no one is ever wholly consistent) objected to what I considered a tendency to *blur* your core politics by implicit or explicit judgments about the political style of an undetermined mass of "leftists." (And in the exchange over Moore you did speak of "the left" and not strictly of "marxist-leninists." (Incidentally, I have known a number of people who *called themselves* marxist-leninists who didn't fit *anyone*'s sense of what that term covers.)
And finally, "marxist-leninist jargon" in the abstract is a pre-judgment. That is the sort of thing (and you consistently recognize this in most contexts) which can only be judged in the concrete, not the abstract. That "jargon" besides overlaps the vocabulary in which millions of radicals and revolutionaries of very varied persuasions have talked to each other.
And we will decide *at the time* what language speaks to "the american people." Moreover, as a matter of fact, NO LANGUAGE CONCEIVABLE will EVER speak to THE "American People." At any given time we will choose our language to fit *a particular constituency*, defined not by our ideas, marxis-leninist, anarchist, radical, whatever but by the ongoing practice in which that constituency defines itself. Any preconception of the suitable language will be as disastrous as the worst marxis-leninist jargon imaginable.
Get rid of preconceptions of what the "left" is or wants or speaks, of what "marxist-leninists" are or want or speak, of what "the american people" want or are or speak.
You yourself (with my hearty agreement always) have continually pointed out that on a mail list we are all separated from the political practice which defines us. There is no way of avoiding that. But we can consciously allow for that in various ways. One of those ways is by not operating on the kind of preconceptions I speak of here.
Traffic on lbo-talk and marxism is awfully heavy, and I'm running way behind on all the threads that seem important to me. That is why I haven't responded to the posts you speak of. They're all printed out and in separate loose-leaf binders according to topic. Besides, the same issues keep coming up, and if one of us doesn't catch one of them on one round, he/she will on another.
Still your friend and comrade, with much more to agree on than differ on. But remember, we use to discuss on m-i how we needed a space in which those who *shared* basic agreement could fight with each other. We've got it. If we growl at each other, the framework is totally different from the various contexts provided by m-i.
Carrol