cbcox writes:
> Back in the early '70s I read extensively in the exchange of polemics
> between the USSR and PRC (actually between the Central Committees of the
> two parties). In the earlier stages (before a formal break occurred),
> the USSR focused its criticisms on _Albania_, not China; the PRC focused
> its criticisms on _Yugoslavia_, not the USSR. It was of course an open
> secret: Albania equals China; Yugoslavia equals USSR.
>
> This debate gets confused because similar Aesopian language
> exists both here and on LBO. The result is that innumerable issues that
> ought to be and could be debate with minimal rancor can't be, on either list.
> Science (or sometimes cbcox) gets vulgarized on LBO so it
> (he) can stand in for LNP. The _Nation_ gets heroized on Pen-L so it can stand for
> Satan. (Our two combatants lack the sophistication, however, of the
> Central Committees of the respective CPs of PRC & USSR, so
> they descend much more quickly into naming each other.)
> Now Pinker=Nation=DH=Jd, and there is no way principled debate can
> emerge from that mass of identities. (Apparently now CJ=LPN=Satan as
> well, thus adding further confusion.)
the comment on Aesopian language is right on target. I tend to respond only to the text in front of me and to the author of it, unconscious or perhaps semi-concious of the stormy controversies swirling about, partly _because_ they are in Aesopian language. (For one thing, I don't know at all what's happening on LBO.) Part of the problem is that I don't understand all of the controversies going on, so I shut them out.
For the record: from what I've read, I don't like Pinker. I am ambivalent about the NATION. I like most of what Doug Henwood says (in his magazine and on pen-l). But I should not be equated to him.
If CJ is Charles Januzzi (sp?), I don't equate him with Louis (LPN?) at all. As for Satan, he doesn't exist.
JD
