Fwd: Nader attack: your posting

Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Wed Jan 19 10:17:13 PST 2000

Please forward:

To: Lorna Salzman

Dear Ms. Salzman,

As Doug says, he is actually a "... just a wussy (sic) liberal, soft on postmodernism, and too fond of uncertainty in thought and practice." So, your criticism of him below is way off in right field. Criticism of Ralph Nader is not sufficient to qualify one as a hardline Marxist.

Yes, Marxists are against capitalism as a system. Are you ? Ralph Nader's projects will never succeed if he does not have ending the capitalist system, not just certain specific aggregious expressions of that system, as his overall goal. Nor can the Greens succeed if they are not also solidly Red.

Charles Brown


P.S. your oppositiion to the invention of e-mail because it allows wide public speech , and other comments advocating censoring Doug Henwood sound kind of rightwing and anti-civil liberties.

>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 01/19/00 12:38PM >>>
Hey, all you "hard line Marxist ideologues" out there - why not tell sweet Lorna Salzman that I'm really just a wussy liberal, soft on postmodernism, and too fond of uncertainty in thought and practice.


>X-From_: lsalzman at aba.org Wed Jan 19 12:05:05 2000
>X-Sender: lsalzman at mail.iex.net
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:06:22 -0500
>To: rugosa at interport.net
>From: lsalzman at aba.org (Lorna Salzman)
>Subject: Nader attack: your posting
>I am very troubled by your spreading on the NYS Green forum the Henwood
>and Tom Trouble (?)' reports and slanderous attacks on Ralph Nader re the
>Multinational Monitor issue and because neither you nor anyone you
>contacted allowed Nader or anyone else to state the other side of the case.
>Doug Henwood of course is a hard line Marxist ideologue with whom I have
>had minimally polite but firm debates over environmental and economic
>issues. However, his fuse is short and his tolerance of dissent almost
>nonexistent. He is intelligent but intolerant. As for "Tom Trouble",
>whomever he may be, his name speaks volumes about what he is up to. In
>other words, we are not talking objectivity, and therefore credibility is
>at issue.
>The fact is that my personal experience with the sectarian hard line
>Leftists, and my unmoderated responses to them, have reaped me the title of
>Left baiter. But it is well established, and I have reams of stuff to
>support it, that the hardline Left will always find a reason to attack
>those who are more accomplished and respected than themselves, mostly
>because they have nothing better to do. Not least of course is that the
>best ideas of the Left have been subsumed by the Green philosophy, hence
>their seething rage against Greens, and of course against Nader.
>The sectarian Left has been on the anti-Nader warpath since 1996, with
>Brian Tokar and Howie Hawkins leading the pack. If they cant discredit him
>one way they will find another. It is pathetic: disgruntled dishevelled
>discombobulated disoriented disappointed deceived Leftists with no ideas,
>no organization, no principles, no scruptles, no support, no credibility,
>no status, descend like wolverines on one of the most respected
>accomplished progressive political personalities in the US. Are they afraid
>to go after people like Buchanan, Gore, Gates, Trump, or some of the
>revolting reactionaries in Congress, or the mega-capitalists sucking the
>economy dry? What about Monsanto? WTO? NAFTA? IMF?I thought the Left was
>anti-CAPITALISM. Since when have they changed direction and decided to
>ignore the real enemies? No wonder there are so few Leftists. This kind of
>stuff makes one regret the invention of email. It allows all kinds of
>ignoramuses and fanatics to post their worthless pointless venom in any
>direction their twisted mind desires.
>As someone who has been the victim of such irresponsible attacks myself,
>and as an observer of the untrammeled circulation of nasty rumors within
>the Green movement, I feel that this kind of slimy attack - basically
>accepting the views of a single person without an airing of all sides of
>the issue -has no place in Green work or for that matter anywhere. It is
>National Inquirer writ large. Greens should be above this kind of stuff.
>Greens should, individually and collectively, be fair and evenhanded when
>criticizing someone in their ranks. This is not to say that Nader or anyone
>else is exempt from criticism, not the least bit. But when we attack the
>mass media for purveying lies and biases and distorted news, we should not
>think that Greens can operate by a different standard. Yes indeed, it does
>seem that the Left eats its young. But on second thought maybe that isnt
>such a bad idea.
>I believe it is incumbent on you to either seek views of those on Nader's
>side, and circulate them on line, or publicly state that you have no
>personal knowledge of the accuracy or completeness of the Tom Trouble and
>Doug Henwood postings. And it behooves you to refrain from this kind of
>muckraking in the future. It violates in every respect Green values and
>principles. It is an abuse of the Green listserve. And it is an abuse of
>truth and justice.
>Lorna Salzman
>Lorna Salzman
>Box 775
>East Quogue, NY 11942
>718-522-0253; 516-653-3387
>fax: 718-522-0253 (call first)
>lsalzman at aba.org

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list