Post by Steve PopeIt's been asserted that "social engineering" is predominately associated
with the political left.
even someone who did not live in Berkeley when the original major
traffic-diverter system arrived (in the 1970s) can still be reasonably
expected to've picked up ... that ... efforts to social-engineer, or even
to "re-shape" human nature, in the 20th century are traditionally
explicitly leftist.
By "explicitly," I meant from politicians and writers who identified
_themselves_ as leftist. This is not some label from me. I did not mean it
as an armchair assertion of some notion I liked, and therefore believed (in
the the yes-it-is, no-it-isn't style so familiar online). Rather, a
reference to something you might know about already, but if not, can
demonstrate to your own satisfaction, if you have unfortunately not done
enough reading of modern history yet, which is where I got it. It's not
about assertions, or even very controversial among leftists who know this
subject matter.
The original posting included a tiny taste (not addressed in reply). Spend
serious time into the history of "Socialist Man" or "centrally planned
economies," or social-engineering advocates like Karl Menninger ("The
political problem ... is to organize human impulses in such a way that they
will direct their energy to the right strategic points"), and see how the
advocates identify themselves. If you have not done so already, which was
how it looked to me. But if not, why are you arguing with me? Those
things are what I referred to. Of course it is very easy to argue, offhand,
against information that doesn't sound nice, as long as it's safely
unfamiliar. People do so constantly online. Even on technical subjects, or
hobbies like wine.
-- Max
--
Excerpt from S. A. Lakoff's summary of socialism in _Dictionary of the
History of Ideas_ (Scribner's, 1973):
Neither the failure of premature and small-scale communitarian experiments
nor initial departures from the ideal by revolutionary regimes are
considered grounds for despair. "Socialist man," it is argued, can only be
expected to make his appearance and keep himself from being corrupted when
socialist institutions are firmly and widely established. Like earlier
millenarians, modern socialists cling to the faith that once the soil is
prepared, a genuine and lasting egalitarianism will become a practical
possibility. ... In this faith lies the essence of the socialist idea.
[At least they don't come door-to-door and hand out tracts. "Initial
departures from the ideal by revolutionary regimes," indeed.]