JKSCHW at aol.com:
> I am sure you are. I am petty bourgeois professional, a government lawyer.
Gordon:
> > After that I'd like it if you decided whether a radical analysis
> of our lives is "blah blah" or has some kind of validity. Or
> is it postmodernistically both at once? What do you believe
> in, besides efficiency?
JKSCHW at aol.com:
> Freedom and justice?
>
> And don't condescend to me, boyo, about radical analysis. You
> want my publications list, see if it passes your muster for
> commitment to radical analysis? I've been at this for a while,
> Gordon. My point has just been that if your radical analysis
> is worth any more than dogshit, your organizational style won't
> cut out participation by working people.
I don't care about your rank. If you weren't dismissing radical analysis as "blah blah", what is it you were you dismissing? I'm trying to find the ground here.
As for my organizational style, it's non-existent. I'm not prescribing how other people should act. I pointed out what looks like an incontrovertible fact to me: where radicals adopt bourgeois structures, relations, and rhetoric, they cease to be radical and become part of the system fairly rapidly, and they also become depressing. Substitute "feudal" for "bourgeois" and "murderous" for "depressing" in the case of certain points further east. Maybe it looks different to you; where?
How do you apply your last sentence to, say, Abolition?