3 ms·

Isn't one of the key tenants of socialism that almost all power is consolidated into the hands of the few and they make decisions for everyone else? Seems like

• JeremyBanks 5y ago
  No
  • amscanne 5y ago
    You might be saying no because the comment is facetious, but the transition state being capitalism and communist bliss (communal ownership and no state) is in fact the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is fully centralized authority. The real trouble with communism (and arguably socialism generally) is that reducing centralized control has proven difficult in practice… similar to what happened here.
    • mcv 5y ago
      Only according to Marx. Tons of socialists strongly disagree with Marx. But even if they agree, the proletariat is not a few people.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    • personasdfghjkl 5y ago
      The DoTP isn't necessarily supposed to be centralized state authority. Marx based his DoTP off the Paris Commune, which was the furthest thing from authoritarian.
      • JPLeRouzic 5y ago
        > the Paris Commune, which was the furthest thing from authoritarian. For the two months it ran, there was an organized government [0] (conseil de la Commune) which made decrees, there was an army of ~200,000 soldier [1] and there was a Jacobine police which assassinated many people (including other "Communards") without trials [2]. This radicalization in a very short time (two months) was denounced by many other "Communards" and people like Victor Hugo [3] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_Council_(Paris) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_Council_(Paris) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune#National_Guard_takes_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune#National_Guard_t... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Rigault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Rigault [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Hugo#Political_life_and_exile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Hugo#Political_life_and... Citation: Victor Hugo was harshly critical of the atrocities committed on both sides. On 9 April, he wrote in his diary, "In short, this Commune is as idiotic as the National Assembly is ferocious. From both sides, folly." Yet he made a point of offering his support to members of the Commune subjected to brutal repression. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Ann%C3%A9e_terrible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Ann%C3%A9e_terrible
• akomtu 5y ago
  Not on paper, at least. But socialism is very attractive for hypocrites who want to tell others how to live. In pretty much every country descended into socialism, the founding members were comically frugal on public, but lived a lavish capitalist lifestyles in private. This includes the icon of socialism Lenin.
  • SixDouble5321 5y ago
    If it's socialism in name only, then it isn't socialism. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
• smt88 5y ago
  > Isn't one of the key tenants of socialism that almost all power is consolidated into the hands of the few No, oligarchy is not a key tenet of socialism. You may be thinking of Stalinism. Pure socialism would tend toward extreme democracy, where the government controls all things, but all workers have equal say in what the government does. The editor[1] of Current Affairs describes himself as a libertarian socialist[2] -- someone who strongly opposes centralized rule by a small number of people (or single person). 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_J._Robinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_J._Robinson 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism