>> CB: These are false innuendos about the relationship between
>facts and revolution. Reality and the facts are radical. The
>status quo is preserved by falsehoods, non-facts. >
>My statement went to the relationship between revolutionaries and
>facts, not to revolution per se. And then only to certain
>revolutionaries. My evidence is LP (and others) continuous
>harvesting of one-sided, highly impeachable information re: the
>Balkans. No objective-minded person can fail to see this,
>whatever their stance on the bombing.
>> Nor do individual thinkers have some general advantage over
>collectives, such as hard-line communist cadre , in stubborness,
>principledness or stubborn adherence to principle. Max offers no
>facts to support his
>assertion of a self-congratulatory , academic stereotype. >
>Collectives is a little vague; we've got some coop natural foods
>stores down here. They could be construed as collectives but
>would not fall under the scope of my statement. Real Communist
>cadre groups are a whole different matter. The plain fact is
>that if you are in such a group, bullshit is one of the daily
>dietary requirements, and adherence to principle is carefully
>rationed. This has nothing to do with academics or
>non-academics, nor with any claim to principle by myself.
>You can't prove something like this. You can either live it or
>read about it. Reading is a lot easier. I recommend "Invisible
>Man" by Ralph Ellison. Or Hemingway on the Spanish civil war.
>And if you haven't lived it and don't believe what you read, you
>wouldn't know.
>mbs