<< 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.
I have no rank, just a lot of wear on the treads.
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.
Last try. I got ticked when several people, and I can't recall if you were among them, trashed my comment that working people with families need to have tightly run meetings that allow them to get the kids to fed and to bed and to get themselves to bed in time to get up to work. The reply was that those needs showed that they were complicut in their own repression.
That is not radical analysis, chum, that is horseshit no matter how you dress it up. Radical analysis makes you inquire how to make space for working people and people (largely women, alas, in present conditions) with childcare responsibilities,. If you cannot see that, I am not interested in whatever it is you call radical analysis.
> As for my organizational style, it's non-existent.
I didn't mean you in particular. That was the universal "you," "one", if you like.
> I'm not
prescribing how other people should act.
But I am.
>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,
What are "bourgeois structures"--Robert's Rules are "bourgeois structures"? And "bourgeois relations"--what are those? The main one is wage labor, which isn't really a choice for most people. Then there is marriage, but if you don't do that (and you have kids), you are typically screwed. And "bourgeois rhetoric"? What's that?
But I amy be the wrong person to talk to. I am a lawyer. I wear a suit and tie. I take the train from the burbs downtown to work in the courts. I am married with two kids. I worry about paying the mortgage, saving for their college and retirement. I am, by what I surmise your standards are, hopelessly compromised, not radical, part of the system, a dreadful sell out, a zombie, your worst nightmare.
> How do you apply your last sentence to, say, Abolition?
>>
Of what?
--jks