> There is no political context in the United States today where the
> topic is whether America should go communist or American workers
> should socialize the means of production. If questions about
> socialism or Marxism come up at all, it would be in the context of
> discussion about the Iraq War or some such concrete topic among those
> who are already politically active one way or another (most often
> among activists you already know), engaged in concrete struggles for
> clear short-term goals (e.g., Bring the Troops Home Now). In such a
> context, Marxists like Stan Goff would offer one genre of
> explanations, strategies, and tactics concerning the struggle in
> question; liberals like Michael Moore would offer another.
I agree. I was responding to suggestions that it was somehow unprincipled of Doug not to have raised the matter of socialism in front of a mass audience. It is today, as you say, an issue for much smaller circles. -----------------------------------
Bill Bartlett wrote:
> There's not much point in just asserting "I'm a socialist" to people
> who don't know what socialism means, but there is a point in
> explaining what it means. So you could say "I'm in favour of economic
> security for all" and "I'm in favour of economic, as well as
> political, democracy". You then sum it up by adding "In a word,
> socialism."
----------------------------------
HENWOOD:"I'm in favour of economic security for all, and I'm in favour of
economic as well as political democracy".
VIEWER: "This guy is making sense to me. I believe in democracy. We should be able to control the economic elite the way we control the political elite."
HENWOOD:"In a word, socialism."
VIEWER: "Right, just like they had in Russia and China, where the elite controlled the people, and see where it got them. Now I see where he's coming from. Pass me the remote."