But if that is so, then criticism becomes toothless -- as it is, incidentally, at the present time. Criticism is relevant under several condtions. The most obvious are as follows:
1. At selecting amongs various tendencies within a mass party or a vanguard party
2. At directing support away from alternative parties (vanguard or mass)
3. At providing alternative entertainment for powerless leftists.
---
Part of the problems, then, in contributing to, building, preparting for the growth of a coherent left is finding a non-critical form of political discourse. My own response to Platypus, from what I knew of them, was that they were pretty silly, and in fact I had understood that they had melted away. If someone is launching a critique of them, they're still around. If that is the case, they now form part of the political climate; we can hope a small part but criticizing them won't reduce their presence or make it go away. Building other political tendencies, goals, etc whihc appeal to people who would otherwise find Playtpus attractive would reduce their relative weight.
I feel the same way about criticism of Kleing. It's "correct" as far as I know, but its correctness is, as I say, toothless. Those that are attracted by her work or her political directions will go on being attracted regardless of such criticism. Rather, ssuch phenomenna require that within organizing work one finds ways to utilize/neutralize the effect of such tendencies. We seem to have succeeded in doing so with the few conspiracists in ourlocal organization. They drift along, contribute in some ways, and cause no trouble. Criticizing them is/would be counter-productive. Probably critizing Platypus and/or Kle8in is equally unproductive.
Hence shag's approval of my post on hegemonic parties and her disapprovl of my post on Parenti are contradictory. The positon on parties demands such responses to those who laucnch "criticisms" of this or that.
I'll leae to Chris the pleasant ask of finding contradictions in that last paragraph.
Carrol