The "Response to the Beanery Paper"written by Jeb Cabbage and Emma Evechild should not be overlooked or pushed aside.
What Jeb and Emma did in responding to the Beanery paper was in effect to throw a nasty bourgeois-intellectual stone from the unsanitary cesspool of anti-communism.
The deliberate twisting of quotes.out of context and the gross distortion ·and spreading of untruths of communist history lead us to conclude that this Nixon type tactic is being used to try and discredit their political opposition. This is being done for two obvious reasons: to protect their control of Mill City and to.protect the ownership and control of the class clique that now leads most of the coops.
Anyone who is acquainted with political revolutionary history cannot stand by and let someone like Jeb--who is a pseudo-intellectual anarchist --molest socialist history and its authors and contributors. To do so will be an insult to the worldwide working class. struggle, and especially a slap in the face to the Vietnamese socialist revolution. ·
The "response to the Beanery paper" can be divided into three parts: (]) coop leadership, (2) justification of the coop's function, and (3) the official or unofficial position of the coops, in short, what the coops stand for we will discuss each of these three areas.