3 ms·

A socialist would argue that socialism is by definition democratic, and the fact that (eg) the USSR was totalitarian from the get-go means that it was never soc

by bccdee 5y ago

A socialist would argue that socialism is by definition democratic, and the fact that (eg) the USSR was totalitarian from the get-go means that it was never socialist. After all, a socialist society is definitionally one where power rests in the hands of the working class, and that was certainly not the case in the USSR. Now, you could argue that, per this definition, no socialist society is possible. But that's not the argument you're making. You're arguing that what socialists actually want, despite whatever they say, is Soviet-style totalitarianism, because the USSR called itself socialist. Which is not a sound argument.

soco 5y ago
I think it matters much less what they wanted, than what got implemented. Nobody lived in an imaginary society, they all lived in the real world where things turned up bad. Also amanita looks beautiful, right?
- bccdee 5y ago
  The problem is that your argument is unsound. > All of our leaders were "democratically" elected. We have one choice at the ballot and you can vote Yes or No. You place your "secret" ballot (filled out in a closed booth!) into a separate "Yes" box or "No" box in full public view of election officials, who just signed you in and have pen and paper in their hands. Our leaders enjoyed an overwhelming public support as a result. This is Socialism. That's not socialism. That's authoritarianism. Look in any dictionary — you won't find any of them say that sham elections are a component of socialism. Of course, you can make the argument that socialist societies are necessarily authoritarian, but you're not. You're just pointing at an authoritarian society that called itself socialist (and which, incidentally, also called itself a democracy despite not being one) and saying "this is definitionally socialism, and socialism necessarily entails everything we see here." Regardless of what you actually think of socialism, that's not a sound logical argument.

by bccdee 5y ago

soco 5y ago

I think it matters much less what they wanted, than what got implemented. Nobody lived in an imaginary society, they all lived in the real world where things turned up bad. Also amanita looks beautiful, right?

bccdee 5y ago
The problem is that your argument is unsound. > All of our leaders were "democratically" elected. We have one choice at the ballot and you can vote Yes or No. You place your "secret" ballot (filled out in a closed booth!) into a separate "Yes" box or "No" box in full public view of election officials, who just signed you in and have pen and paper in their hands. Our leaders enjoyed an overwhelming public support as a result. This is Socialism. That's not socialism. That's authoritarianism. Look in any dictionary — you won't find any of them say that sham elections are a component of socialism. Of course, you can make the argument that socialist societies are necessarily authoritarian, but you're not. You're just pointing at an authoritarian society that called itself socialist (and which, incidentally, also called itself a democracy despite not being one) and saying "this is definitionally socialism, and socialism necessarily entails everything we see here." Regardless of what you actually think of socialism, that's not a sound logical argument.