Unity and diversity of thought in the “constructive” Socialist debate degenerates into aggression The measure of constructiveness that the Socialists themselves are using today to artificially maintain a modern and democratic façade. Since the most important thing for the Socialists today is to remain in opposition, even though they are now a party that is not at all destabilized, but to keep alive at any cost the illusion of a socialist party, this is not about genuine competition, but only about bringing out again a party that aims to have no diversion; it needs, as always, to successfully cope, at a time when it is appropriated by its own members, without forgetting the handling of internal ties, as well as confrontation, which is often easier from outside than from within. Nothing new, as long as the maneuvering of recent years continues, through which it will also fulfill some of these aims that at the same time create a new façade. And this is the initiative of yesterday by the chairman of the Socialist Party, F. Nano, toward Blendi Klosi, the former secretary of the PS youth wing. What is added by the president and the head of government should not lead to a very high development and to another, through which it was experimented in a new society. And there is nothing surprising in the game of the socialist forces, which are trying to exploit without losing time the experience of a lively debate. Otherwise the right wing exploits it, not allowing the rise of new forces. This is also what has more often worried the Socialist Party, which in many moments has been forced to take urgent measures to stop a broad debate within its ranks, which it has considered an attempt to undermine one of the key concepts of its internal organization. And if the Socialists have started a current debate with new names, this does not mean that they have opened the door to a radical change within their ranks. Such a thing appears impossible, when after almost a year, its new leaders think that now, as they are becoming a sort of integrated political force, they no longer have the sensitivity they showed at the beginning. And yet, in a period when it seems to have to resolve every crisis, this party appears more prepared to withstand every deep change of these years, with the old mechanisms of its leadership. Today, while we must state with full certainty that the changes will not ultimately wipe out the Socialist Party, its engagement with both sides of the revolt of free thought was made during the previous period, when it began to display its internal diversity as well, at that time a large party, built on several long-standing planks and not on new fathers in its midst. But even then, in order to preserve its sterility, it took care not to allow the expulsion of a free spirit that would bring major changes. However, in today’s case, everything seems clearer. It is loudly announced that there must be a new direction for the youth, but the subtext remains the same: total party control over the debate, not a real opening. Therefore, what is evident is that everything happening in the PS is more reorganization than reform. In this sense, its “zockat” are only a symptom of this internal power struggle, where words about democracy serve as decoration.