“ Socialism is not terribly interested in societal control,”
Yet how does the socialist enforce their beliefs and control of the economy if not by “societal control.”
Socialist states have either gone bankrupt (or nearly so) or rapidly devolved into totalitarianism. Give us an example where that hasn’t happened. (And no, Sweden isn’t a socialist state).
“ Socialism is not terribly interested in societal control,”
Yet how does the socialist enforce their beliefs and control of the economy if not by “societal control.”
Socialist states have either gone bankrupt (or nearly so) or rapidly devolved into totalitarianism. Give us an example where that hasn’t happened. (And no, Sweden isn’t a socialist state).
This is the eternal argument. Socialism is not terribly interested in societal control until organized resistance forms, and then the instruments of coercion come out.
Marx and Lenin were, in a sense, refreshingly honest in their analysis -- so, to a point, was Eugene V. Debs, which helped get him thrown in jail. They recognized that a period of serious coercion -- Marx's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" -- would be required to make their revolution irreversible, and that a leadership of dedicated revolutionaries -- Lenin's "Vanguard Party" would be necessary to ensure the Dictatorship's non-deviation and ultimate success. All the soft-focus blurring between "social democracy" and "socialism" is just that: soft focused blurring to avoid stating the obvious. The irreversibility of the economic program, guaranteed by force, is the ultimate distinguishing characteristic. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown led one of the world's most successful Social Democratic parties, in part, because they unequivocally rejected that; Jeremy Corbin is in the political wilderness because he most assuredly did not.
There IS one aspect in the revolutionary Enlightenment values of the United States that is treated as irreversible. It's the thing that the Founders talked the most about: Liberty. We generally treat Liberty as on a one-way ratchet: over time it expands, but doesn't retreat for long. As long as we retain our love of Liberty, no form of social organization that ultimately depends on coercion can truly flourish here for very long.
“ Socialism is not terribly interested in societal control,”
Yet how does the socialist enforce their beliefs and control of the economy if not by “societal control.”
Socialist states have either gone bankrupt (or nearly so) or rapidly devolved into totalitarianism. Give us an example where that hasn’t happened. (And no, Sweden isn’t a socialist state).
This is the eternal argument. Socialism is not terribly interested in societal control until organized resistance forms, and then the instruments of coercion come out.
Marx and Lenin were, in a sense, refreshingly honest in their analysis -- so, to a point, was Eugene V. Debs, which helped get him thrown in jail. They recognized that a period of serious coercion -- Marx's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" -- would be required to make their revolution irreversible, and that a leadership of dedicated revolutionaries -- Lenin's "Vanguard Party" would be necessary to ensure the Dictatorship's non-deviation and ultimate success. All the soft-focus blurring between "social democracy" and "socialism" is just that: soft focused blurring to avoid stating the obvious. The irreversibility of the economic program, guaranteed by force, is the ultimate distinguishing characteristic. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown led one of the world's most successful Social Democratic parties, in part, because they unequivocally rejected that; Jeremy Corbin is in the political wilderness because he most assuredly did not.
There IS one aspect in the revolutionary Enlightenment values of the United States that is treated as irreversible. It's the thing that the Founders talked the most about: Liberty. We generally treat Liberty as on a one-way ratchet: over time it expands, but doesn't retreat for long. As long as we retain our love of Liberty, no form of social organization that ultimately depends on coercion can truly flourish here for very long.
Excellent!