<HTML>Justin: So good to know that I still perform that vital rhetorical function for you of confirming your revolutionary credentials. Too bad that you are the only person who cares whether or not you have those credentials. What is "bloodly red revolution" [need I remind you, a term of your creation] if not the product of the "you have to break some eggs to make an omelet" worldview of Leninism-Trotskyism-Stalinism? If not, exactly what and who is responsible for the Gulag, for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the Khymer Rouge and so on?  After a century of "bloody red revolution," it doesn't seem that difficult to me to draw the lines between the dots, as this is one of those "the shortest distance between two dots is a straight line" phenomena. And it seems fairly obvious to me that those who revel in their Leninism today do so in full knowledge of what it entails, of the record of innocent blood which was shed, however you want to describe that. Those who claim otherwise are no different from those who deny that HIV is the causative agent in AIDS, or those who deny the existence of the Nazi genocide -- willful deniers of the obvious. [This is why, incidentally, that I think Zizek's current "tarrying" with Lenin is so grossly irresponsible, and reflects a cavalier view of politics as language games _without_ consequences.] When it comes to picking sides, I know which side I am on, in the here and now, on this question, Justin; the only credentials I need are those of a democrat. It seems far easier for you to speculate about where you and I may find ourselves on the sides of future conflicts then to make a similar unambiguous stand on Leninism and its progeny. Now, it seems that you are prepared to settle for "social democracy," so long as there is no viable agent, in even the most embryonic or inchoate form, to bring it into being. As soon as one mentions that there might be the makings of such political and social forces, you have to run to an exegesis of how inadequate they are. In order to meet your qualifications, the Progressive Caucus should give up their involvement in the actual, political struggles in the here and now, forget about issues such as Bush's tax cut or education vouchers, and articulate a social democratic program that has no chance of being realized in the short term. You have a way of even making social democracy seem utopian! <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Leo, you have the real gift of making me feel like an ultraleft extremist. Who is living a dream world here? "Bloody red revolution" (which Yoshie does NOT advocate) is not in the cards to fear or hope for; even Chris Burford, I  see, admits that now. But you say the Democratic Progressive Caucus is our hope for social democracy? Look, Leo, there's nor a man or woman-jack here who, if we were to win what they have in France or Germany or even England as far as the welfare state goes, wouldn't think that the revolution was over and we'd won. But the Progressive Caucus doesn't say in public: we need a 35 hour work week, national heath care, six weeks of paid vacation, closed union shop, codetermination of industry, etc.; if its members think these goals are desirable, they will only say so in private, lamenting that they cannot be advocated. much less attained. And the Progressive Caucus doesn't speak for the DP, no. You sneer at Resident Bush, as well you might, but these goals were no closer under Clinton, even when he had a majority in the House; the were not even advocated by Clinton, nor by Gore. No, they preferred to bring us GATT, NAFTA, the MIA, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the end of AFDC, etc. So let us all embrace social democracy or whatever you want to call it; I guarantee you that almost everyone on this list will sigh, some seeing it as a stepping stone to something better. But let's be serious about what we are asking for--a major defeat of the capitalist class. We cannot win this through the PC of the DP. The Labor Party is, alas, fairly inert; who knows, maybe Greens will be livelier. Eventually, because these things come in cycles, popular resistance will re-ignite. Which side will you be on then, Leo? - --jks</BLOCKQUOTE> Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869) Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass -- </HTML>