4 ms·

> The very word has had a campaign against it for a long time because of the 20th century relations between America and Russia It might also have something to

> The very word has had a campaign against it for a long time because of the 20th century relations between America and Russia It might also have something to do with the roughly 85-100 million people whose deaths can be directly attributed to policies enacted in support of socialist utopia during the 20th century. Advocates of socialism like to say that they're anarchist, or that they're anti-authoritarian; but enacting socialism inherently requires authoritarian measures, because it is so rarely the will of competent people to receive as little as incompetents. In cases such as the red terror, competence and success are explicitly terrorized and destroyed in service of the goal. Socialism is authoritarian because at least one person, myself, is unwilling to have his tools and life work taken from him, and given to a fool who will squander them just as that fool squandered the opportunity to attain them.

Synaesthesia 9y ago
Socialism is about improving the lot of workers, and ordinary people and giving them more power, for instance saying that workers should own the factories together, make their own decisions democratically, rather than take orders from a boss. In that respect the USSR has very little to do with socialism, more resembling state capitalism. See Chomsky: The Soviet Union vs Socialism. https://chomsky.info/1986____/ https://chomsky.info/1986____/
- ixtli 9y ago
  yes. the person you're responding to is getting caught up in a very narrow style of authoritarian communism which honestly i can understand being repulsed by! But, as i was saying in the original comment: hundreds of years of work has been done by thousands of scholars and activists to develop marxist theories. the person you're responding to paints leftists as a bloc, all trying to accomplish the same thing! If only!
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > for instance saying that workers should own the factories together, make their own decisions democratically, rather than take orders from a boss. Which means of production will they own? The ones that previously belonged to their rightful owners? Who really owns the means of production if the only way to seize it is through the state? How can that process be anything except authoritarian? If I have a farm, and you intend give it to billy who usually only turns the manure, what non-authoritarian means will you use to enact that goal? The USSR has everything to do with socialism, as does the Khmer Rouge, as does the Great Leap Forward, as does Venezuela's oil socialism. Noam Chomsky can write on Lymphoma vs. Melanoma all he wants, it doesn't make the United Soviet Socialist Republics have any less to do with socialism. If you think socialism is something else, you are thinking about something that isn't socialism. Democracy is the enemy of socialism. You and I both know that your socialist utopia requires killing or imprisoning me, so let's not be coy about it.
harrumph 9y ago
>at least one person, myself, is unwilling to have his tools and life work taken from him, and given to a fool who will squander them just as that fool squandered the opportunity to attain them. Unless, of course, if that person is named "Boss".

Synaesthesia 9y ago

Socialism is about improving the lot of workers, and ordinary people and giving them more power, for instance saying that workers should own the factories together, make their own decisions democratically, rather than take orders from a boss. In that respect the USSR has very little to do with socialism, more resembling state capitalism. See Chomsky: The Soviet Union vs Socialism. https://chomsky.info/1986____/ https://chomsky.info/1986____/

ixtli 9y ago
yes. the person you're responding to is getting caught up in a very narrow style of authoritarian communism which honestly i can understand being repulsed by! But, as i was saying in the original comment: hundreds of years of work has been done by thousands of scholars and activists to develop marxist theories. the person you're responding to paints leftists as a bloc, all trying to accomplish the same thing! If only!
microcolonel 9y ago
> for instance saying that workers should own the factories together, make their own decisions democratically, rather than take orders from a boss. Which means of production will they own? The ones that previously belonged to their rightful owners? Who really owns the means of production if the only way to seize it is through the state? How can that process be anything except authoritarian? If I have a farm, and you intend give it to billy who usually only turns the manure, what non-authoritarian means will you use to enact that goal? The USSR has everything to do with socialism, as does the Khmer Rouge, as does the Great Leap Forward, as does Venezuela's oil socialism. Noam Chomsky can write on Lymphoma vs. Melanoma all he wants, it doesn't make the United Soviet Socialist Republics have any less to do with socialism. If you think socialism is something else, you are thinking about something that isn't socialism. Democracy is the enemy of socialism. You and I both know that your socialist utopia requires killing or imprisoning me, so let's not be coy about it.

harrumph 9y ago

>at least one person, myself, is unwilling to have his tools and life work taken from him, and given to a fool who will squander them just as that fool squandered the opportunity to attain them. Unless, of course, if that person is named "Boss".