Louis Proyect wrote:
> Carrol Cox took exception to my "compliment" Doug Henwood:
> >"I appreciate his excellent efforts through LBO at pressuring the US
> government
> >and business interests into fair play."
>
> Carrol, I was being patronizing and dismissive. Don't you think I know
> that?
As I said in the original post, I need a week or two to mull over my basic response to this complex of quarrels. The remark quoted above was a quick response. But, yes, I knew you were being "patronizing and dismissive," and I expected you to know that I knew. My objections in the same post to Doug's occasional (or frequent) "one-line zingers" reflected the same general perspective as my objections to your little "patronizing and dismissive" joke. You might call it my sense of Communist Decorum.
One way of responding to inadmissable irony is to take it at face value. I may adopt that practice more frequently on maillists.
We are talking here about what is probably the most important concern of a communist in this period of the international retreat of the working classes -- what a communist party will look like when we have the strength to begin seriously to consider the formation of a new communist party. I don't think the spat between you and O'Connor (as far as I've picked up with a few details of it) or you and Doug fits anyone's provisional image of such a party.
I'm still responding off the cuff. I'll know in a week or so if it is a merely
personal irritation or if principle is involved.
Carrol