4 ms·
It comes back to distribution of power and if you believe power is all corrupting or not. You either have some guys in charge managing things, or you attempt a
by TheFiend7 7y ago
It comes back to distribution of power and if you believe power is all corrupting or not.
You either have some guys in charge managing things, or you attempt a distributed/mob rules mentality in regards to policies and legislation. Either way in a socialistic system the government is THE governing body, and there aren't really any checks and balances other than the very body managing it. Which goes back to the question of whether or not you can trust the government.
IMHO the debate between the extreme right and extreme left is more about philosophy than policy.
- kelnos 7y agoIs the lack of checks and balances a necessary feature of a socialist government, or is it just that the Soviet Union didn't have checks and balances, by design?
- TheFiend7 7y agoSocialism lacks checks and balances because it's a decentralized/distributed model of rule. Now in reality it's possible the military could exist as a pseudo "check and balance". But checks and balances do not exist as a defined construct in socialism, by being distributed it argues it doesn't need checks and balances, because it's run by the people. Secondly checks and balances are arguably anti-socialism even, because it would introduce a backdoor/round-a-bout way of enacting rule that wasn't endorsed and driven by the people. So no, the lack of checks and balances isn't just a Soviet Union thing, it's a socialism thing, otherwise it isn't true socialism.