>You don't have to call yourself a Marxist, wave red flags, talk the
>language of early 20th century Russian political organizing, to be a
>socialist. In fact, it's probably best not to do so. It just turns
>off the people you want to organize, as you know. Mainly it's a
>religious thing for people who have developed that identity over
>time.
>
>I'm still a socialist; I haven't changed my views about the
>possibility of a better form of economic organization one whit,
>beyond certain refinements, in maybe 18 years. Of course many of
>you think that market socialis, is a pretty poor excuse for
>socialism, but for what it's worth, I still advocate it whenever I
>can.
>
>As far as what distinguishes us politically from Leo, I am not sure
>that is an interesting question. We disagree with Leo on, among
>other things, the defensibility of historical materialism. We also
>disgree with him--these are probably connected facts--on the
>Democratic Party. Beyond that, Leo does a lot of good activist union
>and human rights work, from what I can make out. If we were in NYC
>and working in his areas, we'd probably work with him happily, same
>as Nathan, who is an absolutely super activist. Practically
>speaking, we are all reformists or sectarians. If and when we
>ourselves ever get close enough to larger changes, we will see on
>which side of what line people fall out. There are a lot of
>self-styled Marxists I'd trust in those circumstances less than Leo
>or Nathan.
>
>--jks
In the absence of any alternative, though, the Democratic Party will
retain the hegemony over leftists by default, so to speak.
Yoshie
