Carrol's use of Maoist thought. It's interesting. If PL is indicative of Maoist thought, then Carrol would be a poor example of what they appeared to support: namely, that the action was with the workers; that students should give up their educations and go into the factories to organize; that anti-imperialism, anti-racism, and women's liberation were nothing but
bourgeois, divisive distrations.
>> As others have mentioned, PL did not have a monopoly on Mao
thought.
In fact, at one point PL renounced Mao and the Chinese CP and was
reduced
to celebrating the last true revolutionary leader, Enver Hoxha of
Albania.
I don't remember if this had happened by the time of the convention.
I
wasn't there.
>> It's not quite accurate to say PL was disinterested in
anti-imperialism, etc.
They blathered endlessly about imperialism and racism, not so much
women's lib, all the
time. What they opposed were separate organizations dedicated to any
particular
cause or limited to any racial or gender group.
>> The Port Huron Statement is on the web somewhere. It's not as
radical
as half the stuff said here on LBO.
>> To me the most interesting SDS years were those between the early
social-dem/
community organizing years and the later dogmatic
Leninist/Trotskyist/Maoist
sects. I came late to the party myself, after the split, latching
onto PL for
a while. (Never joined.)