forms, Lenin published “Left-WingrnCommunism: An Infantile Disorder” inrn1920. Now, there’s nothing wrong withrnlifting an occasional phrase from the leftists,rnor gleaning a lesson or two from theirrnexperience. But Francis’s dependencernon Marxism is too disturbing to ignore.rnHe disparages the Christian Coalition’srnmessage as a “false consciousness,” arnMarxist term for an ideology that distractsrnworkers from legitimate ideolog)’.rnHe identifies the Middle Class (he alwaysrncapitalizes the term) as “the newrnproletariat.” He urges Middle Americansrnto realize that “as another fighterrnonce said, you have nothing to lose butrnyour chains of slavery.” He outlines arnMiddle American strategy in an articlernentiried “State and Revolution,” recyclingrna title used by Lenin in 1917.rnI fear he sees himself as a Karl Marx orrnVladimir Lenin of the middle class, orrnrather. Middle Class. Dr. Francis, afterrnhaving immersed himself in Marxistrndogma for so long, seems to have gonernnatie on us. Like Kurt^, he has becomernwhat he thought he was fighting.rn—Michael C. TugglernCharlotte, NCrnDr. Francis Replies:rnAfter engaging in a debate with me onrn”secessionism vs. nationalism” at lastrnyear’s John Randolph Club meeting inrnChicago and after reading my critique ofrnsecessionism in Chronicles, Clyde Wilsonrnstill doesn’t get it. It is not what Irn”would have,” but rather what is politicallvrnpossible that determines whetherrnsecessionism is practical. Much of myrnargument in Chicago and the article wasrndirected explicitiy at the possibility of arnsuccessful secessionism, its desirabilit’rnwitiiin the framework of what is possiblerntoday, and the likely damage a secessionistrnmovement might cause to other, morernserious movements of the right. Moreover,rnDr. Wilson’s claim that he and hisrnsecessionist colleagues merely advocatern”reform of the American empire by devolution”rnis transparently dishonest.rnWhat they advocate is not simplvrn”devolution” or decentralization withinrnthe national unit}’ of the United States,rnbut outright secession, the “political independencernof the South by all honorablernmeans,” the dissolution of Americanrnnational unity. I advocate authenticrnfederalism, restoration of the 10thrnAmendment, as a means of decentralizingrnfederal power and retaining nationalrnunit)’.rnAs for Mr. Tuggle’s rather breathlessrnand entirely fatuous detection that I amrnreally a crypto-communist, more needsrnto be said. First, he is in error that I “alwaysrncapitalize” the term “middle class.”rnIn fact I never capitalize it, though I dorncapitalize “Middle American” when referringrnto a distinct social and politicalrnidentity. In any case, the word “American”rnis a proper noun and is always capitalized,rnexcept perhaps in the orthographicalrnfantasies of the League of thernSouth.rnSecond, it is true that I use terms andrna certain amount of jargon drawn fromrnMarxism, mainly as metaphors and partlyrnin irony, though I suppose it is askingrntoo much to expect those of Mr. Tuggle’srnbent to catch the latter. In discussingrnwhat I take to be an embryonic revolutionaryrnmovement, I consider thatrnmetaphors drawn from the main revolutionaryrnmovement of the last hundredrnyears are appropriate.rnIf I have become like Conrad’s Mr.rnKurtz, Mr. Tuggle is like the schoolbo}’rnwho disliked Milton’s poetr)’ because hernfound it to be so full of quotations. Thernfact is that Marx’s most enduring influencernon social and political thought isrnhis identification of many of the mainrnthemes and problems of modern socialrntheory—class, class power, class revolution,rnalienation, ideology, and proletarianization,rnamong others. My concernrnwith these issues reflects less the influencernof Marx and Lenin than of later socialrnand political thinkers who dealt withrnthe same issues but gave answers radicallyrndifferent from those offered by Marx.rnAny serious attention to my writingrnshould make this plain, but it sailed pastrnMr. Tuggle, who has confused my attentionrnto issues raised bv Marx with agreementrnwith the answers Marx offered.rnIf Mr. Tuggle can draw himself awayrnfrom ferreting out my communism longrnenough, he might notice that myrnthought reflects the anti-Marxist classicalrnelite theory advanced by Burnham, Pareto,rnand Mosca (who ultimately rely onrnMachiavelli) far more than it does that ofrnMarx or Lenin, my knowledge of whomrnI am the first to admit is superficial. Hernmight also note my use of several otherrnscholars and thinkers who are distinctiyrnnon- or anti-Marxist: Robert Nisbet,rnLewis Namier, Fitzjames Stephen, MaxrnWeber, Ferdinand Tonnies, RonaldrnSyme, M.E. Bradford, Forrest McDonald,rnDavid Hackett Fischer, DonaldrnWarren, James Lincoln Collier, RaoulrnBerger, John Lukacs, and Andrew Hacker,rnto name a few. M’ characterizationrnof Middle Americans, or rather middlernamericans, as a “proletariat” is explicitlyrndrawn from Hacker. As for my use of thernphrase “false consciousness,” would Mr.rnTuggle prefer I use his own word “ideology,”rnwhich was also extensively used b’rnMarx in much the same sense as “falsernconsciousness”?rnIf Mr. Tuggle can get past the Marxistrnmetaphors I often deliberately use in myrnheadings and come at last to the substancernof my beliefs, even he should bernable to perceive that I am really not arnMarxist and that disagreeing with hisrninfantile secessionism does not make mernone.rnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnALBANIAN sepa ratists have beenrnattacking policemen in the Serbianrnprovince of Kosovo for years, though onlyrnrecentiy has the conflict escalated tornthe point where Slobodan Milosevic feltrncompelled to respond with a show ofrnforce. Not surprisingly, Milosevic’s actionrnwas met by the familiar media barragernagainst the cruelty of “the Serbs”rnand bellicose statements by MadeleinernAlbright, who threatened Serbia withrnnew sanctions.rnThe current American strategy is tornforce Vlilosevic into elevating Kosovo tornthe status of a constituent federal republicrnin the rump Yugoslav federation,rnwhich has been reduced to Serbia andrnMontenegro. The province would thusrnbe detached from Serbia, of which it isrnthe oldest and most treasured part: Serbianrnmedieval kings left magnificentrnmonasteries and casties as evidence thatrnthis was indeed the cradle not only of thernSerbian state but of its neo-Byzantinernculture.rnThis “federal strategy” is the untoldrnreason for the State Department’s insistencernthat the problem of Kosovo be resolvedrn”within Yugoslavia,” with nornmention of Serbia. The rationale is thernspurious claim that, although always arnpart of Serbia, Kosovo was also represent-rnMAY 1998/5rnrnrn