Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Harry Magdoff on market socialism

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Doug Henwood wrote:

> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >I think you should
> >seriously consider that there may in fact be good reasons for leftists
> >to be a bit more concerned about "heretics" than are rightists (if that
> >is indeed the case).
>
> I'm not talking about the need to ferret out spies and agents
> provocateurs.

Neither am I, essentially, as I thought the discussion of Karl Kautsky
illustrated. The left does not have at its disposal the official machinery
of government, of universities, of the press, of  book and journal
publishing, etc etc etc. Thus it is *extremely* difficult to achieve unity
of purpose, *even* when there are no spies, provocateurs, etc. present. They
always are present, of course, and that makes everything more difficult, but
the main problem is elsewhere. Congress as Roberts Rules of Order.
Universities and professional journals published by universities have their
professional standards. We have to create our standards on the run, and
there is simply no clear dividing line (even assuming good faith on the part
of everyone) to demarcate who "we" are. I'm arguing that what looks like (or
looks to you or Kinsley like) "heretic hunting" should usually be viewed as
just people doing the best they can to hammer out unity in really
unpromising conditions.

I haven't read the rest of your post yet, but before proceeding any further
I wanted to make this point clear.

Perhaps I should not even have mentioned cops, provocateurs, "traitors,"
etc. but I think it's impossible not to have them in the back of one's mind
and we should keep that fact up front. More important, they simply make more
dramatic the difficulties that exist for the left even not counting
provocateurs.

Carrol