Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >Social movements grow by one-on-one
> >recruiting. So their growth depends on the recruitment of those who are
> >already recruited to start talking to friends, co-workers, etc.
>
> By the way, if I didn't know you, and you talked to me the way you
> write on this list, I'd just say "Fuck you" and move on. Maybe you're
> more effective in real life.
>
In fact, the one thing I do really well is direct one on one agitation and recruiting. I discovered that skill in myself two years before I became a marxist, and the skill led to marxism as much as marxism amplified the skill.
Because it is your habit to make comments on the agent rather than on the ideas expressed, you think everyone else is doing the same. When I comment on the agent, I do it directly -- as in you are not too smart.
Your questions -- which seem to me to be always in bad faith -- are at least as irritating as my blunt statements.
Why in the fuck are you so damn afraid of being wrong? Try sticking your neck out, focusing on the content rather than the writer, and say what you think. You do that in LBO, and it makes you one of the best journalists in the nation. It's for others to decide whether my ideas are correct or incorrect. Why in the fuck should I be apologetic about them? No one has to read me if they don't want to.
Agitation, one on one, is like kneading bread. It would be stupid to try to discuss bread kneading on this list, and it would be equally stupid to use agitational style and content, which operate by the spoken not the written word.
On this list we are all theorists. That is all you can be in cyberspace. Agitation is more fun, and I'm better at it than I am at theory, but for a maillist its theorize or shut up.
Carrol