>Doug Henwood:
>
>> I did. And it reads like something written in another
>> place and another time that has very little relevance
>> to the US of 2006.
>
>I don't think that's true at all. I don't care what you think of his actual
>accomplishments and/or crimes; he has a practical revolutionary's keen
>insight into real intra-group dynamics in organizations fighting for social
>change. A few turns of phrase here and there are specific to the time and
>place from which it emerges, but I recognize from personal experience just
>about every "type" of liberal that Mao lists.
Do I really need Mao to tell me that people who pick fights, pursue their own agendas, or slack off are bad for organizations? And why do we need to call them liberals? Why not just lazy and/or selfish assholes? If we cite Mao, along comes the rest of the apparatus, like the road map version of Marxism.
Doug