I'm a bit of an odd duckling in that I believe that the state and the market are socially embedded.  Which means that if either the state or the market attempt to colonize society and break down social norms and conventions, they prompt social backlash.

Yet that social backlash must be formulated in accordance with those same social rules or it prompts a countervailing social response.

If the Revoution eats its own it leaves no heirs.  

Thus, social revolution is preferable to a violent break with the existing social order.  Change from within the system rather than without.

What does this mean?

That if a group chooses to exclude itself from the society on the grounds of preserving purity, it will often undermine itself.

Take for example the differing strategies of the Spanish Socialists and Communist parties in reference to participation in the Francoist union movement.  While the Socialist refused to participate, and issued bold statement to no effect from the safety of France, the Communist throughly infiltrated the sydincalists unions, such that when the Transition came they already had a mass base in Spanish society.

And in the early 1980's the Communists enjoyed great success until the Socialists were able to take advantage of the Transicion to recreate their own trade union wing (UGT, General Worker's Union) which lagged significantly in membership behind the Communist CCOO (Worker's Commissions) until the early 90's.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg