If you use Twitter or Facebook you will probably be aware of several campaigns related to what might happen when the Tory former leader and ex-PM Margaret Thatcher dies.
These range from plans for a range of celebrations to the demand that her funeral should be privatised rather than being paid for by the public.
There is no doubt that 20 years after she left office Thatcher still provokes strong views - and not just among opponents.
Most of the current Cabinet are believed to be admirers of her, as was Tony Blair.
The Iron Lady, a new film about the life of Thatcher with Meryl Streep in the lead role, has just arrived in British cinemas. I have not seen it and this is not a film review.
But much of the discussion provoked by the film has focused on how we should remember her role in history.
Some former colleagues, such as Lord Hurd, regard the film as premature. It is certainly unusual to ponder someone's historical impact while they are still alive.
However, in the age of Wikipedia many people can already see what their obituary might look like.
And living politicians are in any case increasingly obsessed with their legacy, and Thatcher is no exception.
Memoirs and authorised biographies have already appeared. Then there is the Thatcher Foundation which, although a sort of fan club, is a useful tool historically. It makes available, often online, many of the former Tories leaders' speeches and notes.
It will be of little interest to those who understandably hate Thatcher, but this can hardly be the position of Marxist historians.
Marx did spend some time in pursuit of an enemy, Herr Vogt, but generally he looked to understand and analyse the forces at work in society.
More recently historians like John Saville have argued that it is not enough for the left to celebrate the struggles of working people. We must understand history as a totality including an appreciation of what the ruling class was up to.
While The Iron Lady was probably not meant as an attempt to enhance Thatcher's reputation, it will certainly be used to do so by a range of her supporters.
I was on the picket lines of steel workers and miners, at Wapping and the poll tax protests, so I have my own memories and views. But that does not make history. For that we need a broader assessment.
Thatcher was the first woman prime minister. She notoriously did little to specifically advance the cause of women, but perhaps the mere fact was a sign of wider changes in society - it was not absolutely necessary for a premier to be an old bloke in a suit any more.
Likewise Thatcher is infamous for her privatisation and free-market agenda, yet there is a strong case for arguing that here she did not lead but rather reflected wider trends in capitalist economies across much of the world. The same is true of Falklands warmongering.
A check is to ponder how differently Labour might have acted in the 1980s had it been in office. We can't know, but the Blair era gives some clue.
It is too early to assess the historical impact of the former PM, but I am arguing here against a unique historical place for Thatcher.
Whether that turns out to be the case or not is a work in progress - and the left has a key role in the argument.
If you appreciated this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star's Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep developing your paper.