3 ms·

> 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 signif

> 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?

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?