>I wish you didn't quote Adolph Reed to score a point -- I
>respect the guy.
As do I, immensely. And I think Adolph's point was very important: that there's a certain brand of radical analysis - of which I've been guilty myself - that is so critical of the limits or even perverse effects of reformism that it ends up doing nothing, since nothing short of revolution will accomplish the proper goal. I am desperately trying to think beyond this.
>BTW, if you think that desire for the Second American Revolution (remote as
>its prospect in the near future may be) can only be an object of irony,
That is not something I'm ironic about. I'm skeptical of its chances, at least according to received models of revolution, but I've picked the wrong line of work if I didn't have some hope for a serious transformation of U.S. political structures.
> you
>have no right to kvetch about the Sandinistas. They got defeated, yes, but
>they tried, against all odds, despite their own errors and weaknesses.
>They have an honorable place in the Marxist tradition.
I entirely agree. My reference to the Miskito Indians the other day was part of trying to rethink the nationalism that lies behind or under a lot of Marxist and other radical thought. Better revolutions for the future by studying the failures of the past. Of course the major reason for the failure of the Nicaraguan revolution was the U.S.-sponsored war.
Doug