One Degree wrote:So unless you are totally Socialist, you default to Capitalist? There are no stages involved in the evolution?
The socialists do have their own "progressive theory of history" which could allow them to claim that a Keynesian state was a stage on the way to full Socialism, perhaps some do. If they did though it would be just as much a false claim as that of an innocent (I didn't want to say ignorant) American libertarian or conservative claiming that a Keynesian state was "socialist" just because it also happens to involve a large, or just interfering, public sector. The raison d'etre and modus operandi of a big state is completely different for Keynesian polities vs Socialist polities. Keynesians aren't broad spectrum misanthropes, their idea is to look after their people not reduce them to cockroaches. It's a kind of paternalism.
One Degree wrote:I thought the whole idea was stages. I find the aversion of modern socialism to being attached to USSR efforts bizarre. It is even more bizarre for Communists to not want to take the credit for the acceptance of Socialism.
Maybe just my lack of understanding?
It is your lack of understanding. Part of the problem might stem from Keynesian capitalists occasionally confusing everyone by calling themselves socialists. There was a time when the lies of socialists had some currency, back when the USSR was still around, at that time Keynesians might use that branding themselves to just to help pull the silly and ignorant away from real socialism. For example Hitler called his party creed National Socialism. It was really National Keynesianism though because although he did deliver actual socialism to the jews, for his own people he delivered Keynesianism.
In addition to that in politics everybody lies.
The solution to 1984 is 1973!