>protestations of uncertainty, scepticsim, ambiguity, ambivalence, etc.,
>which are all merely rhetorical gestures.
I suggest you afford your comrades a little more benefit of the doubt, Yoshie! Just mebbe we're GENUINELY uncertain, sceptical, ambivalent and prey to interpret texts according to our milieu. Not a comfy way to be in a world that demands yes/no decisions at every grey nebulous turn, but one with its virtues, as I think even ol' Moor (whose oft-mocked certainty did not extend, I reckon, beyond the underlying dynamics of his time and the implications of this for a crisis-ridden future; whose scepticism was 'ruthless'; whose ambiguity is difficult to deny; and whose ambivalence regarding certain early 'Marxists' was noted by Engels) felt bound to observe.
>So, supposing that anyone besides Maureen is interested in thinking about
>this question, I'd argue that, besides racism & sexism, we ought to discuss
>the effects of 'common-sense' post-Leninist rhetorical gestures
Disagreeing with some of Lenin's actions is not necessarily just a rhetorical gesture, is it? There is an inevitable common-sense amongst those who defend him across the board, but I reckon Lenin is criticised from a multitude of often very different and irreconcilable positions (hell, I manage to straddle 'infantile' leftism and compromising menshevism in this respect all by myself).
> which probably serve to marginalize someone like Charles.
I've been flailing away at Charles's views on this sorta stuff for eighteen months, during which time I have come to the conclusion that, whatever else he is, he is absolutely unmarginalisable.
Cheers, Rob.