> Left unexplained, of course, was how so many tens of thousands of unions,
> parties, and other workers' organizations over several generations could be
> so easily betrayed by the "bureaucrats" without the masses rising up to
> resist them. Resolving this contradiction, however, leads to one of two
> conclusions: either that the masses are inherently incapable of assuming
> control over their own welfare, as conservative critics of socialism and
> democracy have always contended, or (my POV) are unwilling to take political
> leaps into the unknown until necessity forces them to do so.
Wouldn't you have to be careful about who you apply this to geographically? Most of the late 20th century saw huge increases in standards of living by most material measures for N. Americans, and the late backsliding can be covered up a lot of "best country in the world" rhetoric.
I suspect we're a bit removed from forceful necessity (so far).
-- Andy