[folks, there is a point here, trust me]
> . . . I suggest in this case you are too inaccurate in your
criticisms as well as vulnerable to a charge uncivility. >
As Mr. Henry C.K. Liu points out, accurately for once, I have not ventured any criticisms of Mao. The inspiration for this flare-up was not my criticism of Mao, but of Mr. Henry C.K. Liu and others, and more specifically invective they directed at the person of Prof. DeLong for DeL's rather substantial criticism of Mao et al., incidentally dragged in from another list. I have no particular expertise on Chinese history and never claimed to. I happen to think Mao, his politics, and his writing are not good guides to current practice, but that wasn't the central issue for me.
The form of this criticism was a parody of Maoist rhetoric directed at the composite of attacks on DeL on PEN-L from several persons. Why my own interest in this, since DeL can obviously take care of himself? To stomp on any unprincipled, personal attacks on non-communists. The issue isn't communist rhetoric, but stupid rhetoric from those who pose as communists. It's all there on the web PEN-L archive for you to masticate, if you have the appetite.
The larger point is that political rhetoric from some persons on this list and on PEN-L takes the form of drawing 'us and them' lines, rather than dealing with substance. "We" are Marxist/Leninist/revolutionaries (take your pick), 'you' are something else. Sometimes this takes the form of personal offense at statements not directed at persons, thus reflecting an effort at emotional blackmail. "Criticize my hero and you have insulted me, you shit" is a mode of argument that should be rejected. Even worse is, "criticize me and my hero, and you have insulted our entire people."
If by 'inaccurate' you do not refer to my remarks alluding to Mao, but to Mr. Henry C.K. Liu's credibility, that's simple. He claimed I personally promised him off-list that I would not criticize him, and that was a stone lie. When I reproduced the post in question, he claimed there was a second post with that promise. That was another lie. These are literal lies, not the same as calling someone a liar (which has also happened here) because the interpretation of a statement is in dispute.
Civility is a matter of meaning as well as rhetoric. Calling me a racist without benefit of cuss-words is no less civil than other expressions we could imagine. For instance, Carrol called me an idiot once; that was uncivil too but I didn't mind. The saving grace was that the incivility was leavened by the comic excess of erudition in which the insult was dressed. If HCKL was more intelligent, he wouldn't be so annoying.
mbs