> I usually think that Chuck's contributions are worthless, but this one is at
> least valuable as a case in point. Chuck is an individualist who doesn't
> want to be accountable to anyone else; considers democratic decision-making
> in a mass movement context "authoritarian"; and favors free-floating
> "leaderless" (feel free to laugh) groups of "activists" who will never
> organize masses of ordinary people because they are simply not interested in
> doing so. They are interested in a subculture, not a movement, and if I
> recall correctly, Chuck has actually said this more or less explicitly in
> the past (statements to the effect that small groups of activists doing more
> militant stuff will get the job done).
>
> I sometimes wonder if Chuck actually believes the stuff he says, because it
> is so caricatured -- he seems like a too-perfect bug in a jar.
Typical ad hominem boilerplate from Lacny. Not worth addressing.
Chuck