I am having a very interestign discussion triggered by this post of mine on the place of socialism over at David's place and, because we are being so clever, I invite you all to jump in. My point this morning is this:
I woke this morning with the dichotomy on the tip of my tongue. What we are comparing appears to be Jeffersonian civic republicism v. menshevicism. I do not take Marxists (quite rightly taken as their commonly described communist tyrant co-hort from Maoists to Ba'athists) to be the only successors of Marx. The first victims of Lenin were te menshevics who were the more moderate socialists who formed the first post-Czarist government. Like them many of Mark's contemporaries and following generations rejected the violence but accepted the rejection of pure laisse faire capitalism. That being said, there is this civic republicanism that pre-dates Marx by a hundred years, is validly within the US scheme of community but - and here is the thing - it is also rejected by neo-cons and libertarians and lumped together with non-violent menshevicisms as "evil socialism". So a society like Sweden or Scotland that supports individual and communial rights ought not to be at odds with US community but for the powers that would belittle civic republicanism. They base what they believe on a socialism that comes in large part from Marx.I added a bit from my last comment to Dave but still I am not quite certain if what I have written is clever or a load of clap-trap so anyone more familiar with the Menshevics or civic republicanism can help. I have not even bothered to check the spelling of menshevic so you can start from there.