Nah, the agents are agreeing with them and asking if they can be any help with the mailing list. Let's see, the SWP/YSA had 316 agents/informants between '60 and '76--including 42 who held various offices within the organization. As of 1976 there were apparently 60. Charles Garry estimated that Black Panther Party had 60-70 in 1969. I hope the WWP has learned from this, but I bet they're a fed magnet. Not their fault, of course, but if the person making this charge is not an agent they should get a bit more humble about the problem, and stick to the content of the disagreement.
>At the moment, I am being denounced by name within the National Exec
>Committee of my own organization, the National Lawyers Guild, for being
>critical of the WWP's connection to ANSWER on my personal blog, and a
>resolution is being voted on to denounce all such criticisms as red-baiting
>and denying that ANSWER can in any way be described as a front group of WWP,
>thus making any accusation of such "unfounded" and a "vicious attack." Our
>executive director wanted to add part of the resolution that no local
>chapter could criticize the WWP's role or otherwise deviate from the
>national line (something the NYC chapter already has done in its own
>resolutions), so this "anti-red baiting" position is turning into its own
>form of authoritarianism within various left organizations and publications.
What does 'denounced' mean? They criticized your position and said it's not the Guild's official position? The fact that the Guild would take an official position against what they think is red-baiting is not the same as saying its members can't say what they want, just not in the name of the Guild (chapters or nationally). I suppose you can't take a racist position officially in a Guild chapter either, and that's a good thing. So it comes down to content, not authoritarianism, no?
Jenny Brown