>While it's true that what constitutes a Marxist is something on
>which any two self-proclaimed Marxists seldom agree, there are
>certain basic indicators. Both on the radio and in public forums,
>I've heard people say to you: "I know what you're against, Doug, but
>what are you for?" Anyone considering himself a Marxist would, at
>minimum, answer, "I'm a socialist," and then perhaps go on briefly
>to explain what that means. You, however, don't say this, and I
>assume it's not because it never occurred to you to do so. What you
>do say is usually something along the lines of, "I'm for a strong
>welfare state," or "I believe in economic rights." These answers
>would tend to place you in the category of left-liberal. I don't
>intend this as a denunciation, only as an attempt to locate you on
>the political map. Do you think this characterization is unfair?
I wouldn't have said "I'm a socialist" on the Moyers show, because either the segman wouldn't have run or the audience would have stopped listening. I'd happily say it here, or on WBAI, or in some other forum where it wouldn't result in censorship or loss of audience interest.
I am for a welfare state. I wouldn't say I believe in "economic rights" becuase I don't know what that means. But a stronger welfare state would be good for the working class and would bring us several steps closer to the decommodification of life.
But there's also a real political problem with saying "I'm a socialist," beyond indicating some affiliation. There is no socialist movement, and the whole idea is essentially dead except in the realm of fantasy. It's heartbreaking that that's true, but it is. So I'm not sure what you accomplish by foregrounding an allegiance to socialism if you're more interested in changing the world than advertising your authenticity.
Doug