You don't have to call yourself a Marxist, wave red flags, talk the
language of early 20th century Russian political organizing, to be a
socialist. In fact, it's probably best not to do so. It just turns
off the people you want to organize, as you know. Mainly it's a
religious thing for people who have developed that identity over
time.
I'm still a socialist; I haven't changed my views about the
possibility of a better form of economic organization one whit,
beyond certain refinements, in maybe 18 years. Of course many of
you think that market socialis, is a pretty poor excuse for
socialism, but for what it's worth, I still advocate it whenever I
can.
As far as what distinguishes us politically from Leo, I am not sure
that is an interesting question. We disagree with Leo on, among
other things, the defensibility of historical materialism. We also
disgree with him--these are probably connected facts--on the
Democratic Party. Beyond that, Leo does a lot of good activist union
and human rights work, from what I can make out. If we were in NYC
and working in his areas, we'd probably work with him happily, same
as Nathan, who is an absolutely super activist. Practically
speaking, we are all reformists or sectarians. If and when we
ourselves ever get close enough to larger changes, we will see on
which side of what line people fall out. There are a lot of
self-styled Marxists I'd trust in those circumstances less than Leo
or Nathan.
--jks