shag wrote:
>
> actually, the sucky thing about this incident is that, typical of dems,
> everyone did their best to distance themselves from being a socialist
> therefore reinforcing the use of red-baiting and condoning the idea that
> no one in their right mind would want to be or be associated with
> socialists.
>From a socialist perspective, the passive response of the 'masses' to
the word during periods of political quietism (which is our period since
the mid-70s) is quite unimportant. A socialist movement _always_ begins
with some reform issue which draws people into the streets in growing
masses. That atmosphere generates an internal dynamic among those in
motion (and among some sympathetic or mildly interested observers) the
outcome of which is _always_ some kind of vague interet in _any_
alternative to "what is," and that in turn immediately assumes a vaguely
socialist nature (there is no other alternative). Only at a somewhat
later stage, if the mass movement gains momentum, do these vague
socialist ideas begin to coalesce into some sort of specific program
(and in the process the name of Marx _always_ resurfaces). So who cares
what the polls tell us now aboaut what Americans think. Nothing is
hapeening to make thinking worthwhile on their part.
Carrol