Still, I'm not sure it's a good thing that major sociopolitical changes have been imposed by a determined, highly-positioned clique rather than by a mass uprising.
A fair point. I'm take a Hobbesian view of the world: I take the world as it is, not as I'd like it to be. This, I think, makes me a small 'c' conservative.
However, sociopolitical change by clique isn't necessarily a good thing. Then again, if that clique absorbs change by osmosis and implements it eventually anyway, albeit slowly (which is the British experience) then it's better than the alternative.
You see, every single violent uprising offering a Utopian alternative for 'The People' ends the same way. The Committee for Public Safety and Robespierre, The NKVD and Beria, the NSDAP and Himmler. Every. Single. One. Gulags and train tracks running into lonely woods. Whether it's students pulled from their beds in Chile or dissidents being jailed in China it's all the same in the end. It's as if ideological perfection needs the blood of heretics to function. I think the Left call this 'othering' which is ironic, given the political Left have 'othered' more people in Siberian prisons over the course of history than just about anybody else.
Which is why in an imperfect world a jaded conservative with a gut-belief in small government and self-reliance is less of a threat to his neighbour than a I-know-what's-best socialist who wants to distribute your wealth and re-educate you if you don't agree with their views.
Edited by Monte Carlo, 03 May 2015 - 10:13 PM.