6 ms·

There were many differences between the Soviet Union and the US. Nominal socialism vs. nominal capitalism was only one, and many would argue not the biggest. Pe

There were many differences between the Soviet Union and the US. Nominal socialism vs. nominal capitalism was only one, and many would argue not the biggest. Personally, I'm amazed that so many people who suffered under deeply authoritarian regimes seem to support the authoritarian party in current US politics. Members of exclusive clubs colluding with each other outside of the market or public view tends to work out similarly regardless of whether it's the back rooms of Wall Street or Washington DC (and usually it's both).

aivisol 7y ago
> Nominal socialism vs. nominal capitalism was only one, and many would argue not the biggest. Can you elaborate on this? What, in your opinion, is more significant difference than political/ideological system? I am actually curious because I cannot think of any?
- notacoward 7y ago
  Many people, including myself, believe that the most significant difference was the authoritarian nature of the Soviet State. Soviet citizens had no privacy, no safety, no protected rights, no recourse to an impartial judicial system, and that's all pretty orthogonal to socialism vs. capitalism. The Nolan Chart[1] is a pretty handy way to conceptualize this, as is Political Compass[2]. Be careful, though, because the people making this kind of two-axis argument practically always do so from a libertarian perspective, so the "other corner" of socialist but non-authoritarian alternatives (worker cooperatives, kibbutzim, etc.) tends to get short shrift. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart [2] https://www.politicalcompass.org/ https://www.politicalcompass.org/
  - aivisol 7y ago
    Yes that is true about Soviet Union. (Disclaimer: I lived 20+ years in USSR and more than that in the West). And in theory you are right: democracy vs authoritarianism should not be the same as socialism vs capitalism. Now, what I see as the problem, is to implement a socialism without creating authoritarianism. Apart from the fact that there are no working examples in history, I think it is extremely hard if not impossible at all. If you think of the steps you would do to achieve it? First, you would need to either expropriate/nationalize whatever belongs to the rich. That is how you reduce inequality, right? But creative and resourceful people would still recreate their wealth and you are back in square one with that. Ok, we can tax them heavily. That will probably work at some degree. You will take away their incentive and they will stop being productive or leave the country to prosper elsewhere. The economy will sink, and you will need to either admit your failure or turn to oppressive methods to keep your plan moving forward because there will be too many people who will disagree with you at this point. Surely, there probably are other scenarios, but if they are, where are they?
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Er, which is the authoritarian party in US current US politics? To me, I'd say there isn't a clear answer. It depends on which issue we're talking about.
- notacoward 7y ago
  Yes, it definitely depends on whether you're cherry-picking a few issues or taking a more balanced view. When it comes to property rights, most would say the Democrats' acceptance of higher taxation and regulation makes them more authoritarian. And then there's the second amendment. On the other hand, the "anti terrorism" (pro war) "tough on crime" Republicans seem rather inimical to individual freedom at a much more fundamental level: * More search, seizure, and surveillance * Less due process * Less independent judiciary * More suppression of information (violation of public records laws, gag orders, general enmity toward science/journalism/education) * More tolerance of authoritarian regimes elsewhere * Corruption and concentration of influence among leaders' cronies Really, unless you're a corporation, you have much more to fear under a Republican government than under a Democrat one. If you want to see which party is more authoritarian, look at which one real civil-liberties organizations like ACLU, CCR, etc. find more objectionable. More partisan-political organizations that focus only on "economic rights" and generally act as extensions for the Chamber of Commerce don't paint an accurate picture.

aivisol 7y ago

> Nominal socialism vs. nominal capitalism was only one, and many would argue not the biggest. Can you elaborate on this? What, in your opinion, is more significant difference than political/ideological system? I am actually curious because I cannot think of any?

notacoward 7y ago
Many people, including myself, believe that the most significant difference was the authoritarian nature of the Soviet State. Soviet citizens had no privacy, no safety, no protected rights, no recourse to an impartial judicial system, and that's all pretty orthogonal to socialism vs. capitalism. The Nolan Chart[1] is a pretty handy way to conceptualize this, as is Political Compass[2]. Be careful, though, because the people making this kind of two-axis argument practically always do so from a libertarian perspective, so the "other corner" of socialist but non-authoritarian alternatives (worker cooperatives, kibbutzim, etc.) tends to get short shrift. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart [2] https://www.politicalcompass.org/ https://www.politicalcompass.org/
- aivisol 7y ago
  Yes that is true about Soviet Union. (Disclaimer: I lived 20+ years in USSR and more than that in the West). And in theory you are right: democracy vs authoritarianism should not be the same as socialism vs capitalism. Now, what I see as the problem, is to implement a socialism without creating authoritarianism. Apart from the fact that there are no working examples in history, I think it is extremely hard if not impossible at all. If you think of the steps you would do to achieve it? First, you would need to either expropriate/nationalize whatever belongs to the rich. That is how you reduce inequality, right? But creative and resourceful people would still recreate their wealth and you are back in square one with that. Ok, we can tax them heavily. That will probably work at some degree. You will take away their incentive and they will stop being productive or leave the country to prosper elsewhere. The economy will sink, and you will need to either admit your failure or turn to oppressive methods to keep your plan moving forward because there will be too many people who will disagree with you at this point. Surely, there probably are other scenarios, but if they are, where are they?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

Er, which is the authoritarian party in US current US politics? To me, I'd say there isn't a clear answer. It depends on which issue we're talking about.

notacoward 7y ago
Yes, it definitely depends on whether you're cherry-picking a few issues or taking a more balanced view. When it comes to property rights, most would say the Democrats' acceptance of higher taxation and regulation makes them more authoritarian. And then there's the second amendment. On the other hand, the "anti terrorism" (pro war) "tough on crime" Republicans seem rather inimical to individual freedom at a much more fundamental level: * More search, seizure, and surveillance * Less due process * Less independent judiciary * More suppression of information (violation of public records laws, gag orders, general enmity toward science/journalism/education) * More tolerance of authoritarian regimes elsewhere * Corruption and concentration of influence among leaders' cronies Really, unless you're a corporation, you have much more to fear under a Republican government than under a Democrat one. If you want to see which party is more authoritarian, look at which one real civil-liberties organizations like ACLU, CCR, etc. find more objectionable. More partisan-political organizations that focus only on "economic rights" and generally act as extensions for the Chamber of Commerce don't paint an accurate picture.