Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >I haven't read your original post, I haven't read all of this post I'm
> >responding to. I'll take another look when I get my sight back, at least
> >partially, in the next 24 to 48 hours.
>
> I hope you get your sight back, and quickly, but how can you respond
> to things you haven't even read? You remind me of my egomaniacal
> college roommate who would carry on "conversations" while listening
> to Captain Beefheart at full volume with headphones.
I have read fragments -- I responded to those fragments. I suppose most subscribers to this list can determine whether the fragment(s) I responded to were distorted by being taken out of context. And I responded quickly because I think the general point is quite important.
I don't like the WWP -- I have never liked it, and my knowledge of it goes back over 30 years. But criticism of WWP from the sidelines (i.e., by any journalist) is self-defeating. A large enough movement will simply absorb it.
The SDS groups that walked out of the '69 convention when PL (WSA) took over (and I was one of those who walked out) made a terrible mistake. It was utterly harmless to have PL control the national office, but it was utterly diastrous to split SDS, which lived in its local chapters anyhow, not in the formal position of the national officers.
Crticism only works _within_ an organizational structure. Criticism from the sidelines isn't criticism, it's whining.
Carrol
Carrol
>
> Doug