As should be obvious, I have no problem with most things you write and agree with much of your economic analysis, although I would rely less on value theory and more on general historical factors. I do strongly object to your characterizations of the Cuban revolution and to black nationalism, however. As long as you continue to smear them, I will continue to respond. Your problem is that you relax your scholarly standards when you write about these two topics, since there is very little scholarly basis for your politics. With respect to the question of black nationalism, you simply can not present a systematic analysis the way I did in my CLR James/Malcolm X post of the other day, because it is impossible. So you rely on what we used to call "atrocity stories" in the SWP during preconvention discussion. An atrocity story was used for maximum shock value, but usually had little political value once the dust settled. An infamous atrocity story was the condolence telegram that the SWP leadership sent to Jackie Kennedy right after JFK was assassinated. Jim Robertson, who went on to form the batty Spartacist League, launched a huge campaign around this telegram, attempting to turn it into the equivalent of socialists voting credits for WWI. Bourgeois politics is filled with this sort of nonsense. It usually reaches a crescendo during election campaigns. "Would you vote for a man who didn't pay his taxes for 3 years straight?"
Mostly, your attacks on black nationalism have this character. Instead of discussing the political career of Malcolm X, you fixate on a single meeting that was singularly uncharacteristic of his politics. In fact, his exposure of this meeting very likely got him killed. Instead of discussing the myriad of black nationalist struggles in the 60s and 70s, which included the Attica rebellion, GI revolts in Vietnam, trade union formations like DRUM, student sit-ins at Cornell, solidarity with the anti-Portugese colonialism movement (African Liberation demonstrations in NYC were massive events), etc., you fixate on this single meeting of Malcolm X, even when you can not document your slanderous charge that it led to "collaboration" with attacks on civil rights activists. Now, to top things off, you report on the Uhuru House in Oakland campaigning against whites adopting black children. What is the point of this? What are you trying to say? That black nationalists generally prioritize issues like "racial purity" over issues of genuine concern to the black masses? IS THIS WHAT THE BLACK RADICAL CONGRESS HAS PRIORITIZED? You have kvetched endlessly about the BRC, but have not come up with a substantial analysis of its program. Leaving aside the question of whether the BRC is a black nationalist formation, or simply influenced strongly by it, you should address a serious attempt to mobilize black America rather than these painful anecdotes from your adolescence. I myself once was beaten up in the locker-room by a pro-Enver Hoxha basketball player, but that did not prejudice me against Marxism.
Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)