RE: Historic spirals (fwd)

>of course not, "dogmatic marxist" is a "false" label attached to marxists
>by "dogmatic" liberals!!!
>
>best,
>
>Mine

Well, I'm not so sure this is always the case.  Not all people calling some 
Marxists
dogmatic are liberals (unless one asserts that by definition, which would be
empirically untenable).   For example, there are people who call themselves 
Marxists
who claim that other Marxists are dogmatic for one reason or another.

But I think such debates today amount to quibbling.  Leftists of all sorts 
should be
locating common ground to organize coalitions against those with whom they 
have real
basic differences (those who support the existing social system) rather 
than debate
the finer points of their differences.   This is the time to do it.

And I think it is important to include those who call for reform of the 
system if by
that they really want fundamental social change.  It seems that we are hung 
up on
semantics -- what is "fundamental change in the system" for one person is 
thought of
as "reform of the system" by another.  They have the same idea in mind.  It 
is
finding agreement to push everyone forward as far as possible -- to the 
extent that
they agree to -- which is key to getting anything done.  There are in fact 
people all
over the world doing this.

But if people do not think that the system has to be reformed such that the 
existing
world inequalities are resolved, then they are not part of the program for 
change
regardless of what they call themselves.  And vice-versa.  A rose is a 
rose...

elson