> One does not "convert" people to socialism.
> It is not a religion of which one can say "Whosoever believeth in me
> shall not perish" (or something like that).
No, but I'm thinking of how a socialist could contribute to the ongoing political debate in this country. The number of "Christian rightists" (who apparently now prefer to be called "evangelicals," though there are not a few evangelicals who vehemently disagree with the rightists on a lot of issues) has been greatly exaggerated by a lot of people in the last 3 weeks, but they certainly do have a lot of political sway, out of proportion to their numbers, I would say. And a big reason for that is that they in fact *do* evangelize: they get right in people's faces and say "This is what I believe."
I don't see why socialists, if they have something distinctive and important to say on the questions that are on the public's mind, shouldn't be just as pushy. If socialists have something to say that distinguishes them from social democrats, or what is called "liberalism" in today's rather perverted political lexicon, it presumably lies in their particular vision of what society should be like -- social ownership of the means of production. So why be ashamed of the idea, or assume that it is "above the heads" of the populace, or something that should be discussed "later" or "only with those who are ready to hear about it," like some sort of esoteric mystical doctrine? I suspect that a large part of the reason why socialists don't come out and express their ideas clearly is that they have found by experience that they don't have very good answers to some of the questions that sincere skeptics raise.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org _____________________________ "Simply by being human we do not have a common bond. For all we share with all other humans is the same thing we share with all other animals -- the ability to feel pain." -- Richard Rorty