3 ms·

Transitioning from feudalism to capitalism in its liberal form meant freeing people and providing them more rights and liberty. Transitioning from that to soci

Transitioning from feudalism to capitalism in its liberal form meant freeing people and providing them more rights and liberty. Transitioning from that to socialism would mean taking freedom away. Despite what some claim the dictatorial nature of the 20th century's socialist countries is not accidental, it is inherent to socialism.

maxbond 4y ago
I'd argue that a violent revolution to sieze state power and use an authoritarian regime to implement socialism will always result in an oppressive regime, but that socialism does not, in itself, lead to authoritarianism or oppression. There's nothing inherently oppressive about a stateless, classless society where the means of production are owned collectively. And you can get there by giving people more rights, by democratizing more and more parts of society and giving people the right to access the essentials of life like health care, food, and shelter. I think someday we'll look back on this time in history and think it was absolutely crazy that health care wasn't considered a fundamental right.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  > where the means of production are owned collectively. This, right there, is inherently oppressive because it removes individual liberty and initiative and it requires enforcement. The same goes with lack of private property. That's why, in fine oppression is inevitable. In this same way as I think "implementing socialism" has to start by violent means. I think some people are so idealistic that they don't, or don't want to, realise this. Now, what liberal countries have done is to take some socialist ideas and to implement them as social policies within the liberal capitalist system. That is very different from socialism and a working approach. There's a quote, with many variants and attributed to many people, which I think holds a lot of truth: "Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart. Any man who is still a socialist at age 40 has no head.".
  - maxbond 4y ago
    You have the freedom to move your body in whatever way you please, until the point where your fist contacts someone's nose. I don't think anyone would argue this is oppressive. In the same way, everyone had a right to participate in whatever kind of economic activity they please, until that becomes holding hostage the tools society needs to provide for itself. There's no law of physics which says society has to be changed through violence. In my lifetime I've seen the rights of LGBTQ people extended dramatically, and it hasn't been through violent means. Regarding whether violence is necessary to "enforce" a lack of private property, please see my response elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33965787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33965787 You're free to view me as too idealistic, you're entitled to your opinion and it doesn't disturb me, but I'd point out that the other side of this coin is being so cynical that you become blind to how society is changing and underestimate what is possible to achieve. Personally I think it's better to air on the side of optimism; I'd rather try and fail than to despair, and while cynicism can often have an aloof detachment that feels very intelligent, I think it's skin deep.
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      I don't know what LGBTQ rights have to do with socialism. If anything they are the progression of enlightenment liberalism. Overall, I think your reply somewhat proves my point about idealism and denial of reality. And that's fine in principle but can have dangerous consequences (road to hell is paved with good intentions kind of thing).
      - maxbond 4y ago
        It's an example of a successful social movement to bring about positive change without violence. You're entitled to feel however you like, if you want to express that as an argument I'm happy to respond to it, if you don't feel so moved than that's fine too. But if I don't know what about my response makes you say that, there's not really anything more for me to add. (If you do elaborate, I won't see it until tomorrow because I'm going to log off for the evening now.)
  - 4y ago

maxbond 4y ago

I'd argue that a violent revolution to sieze state power and use an authoritarian regime to implement socialism will always result in an oppressive regime, but that socialism does not, in itself, lead to authoritarianism or oppression. There's nothing inherently oppressive about a stateless, classless society where the means of production are owned collectively. And you can get there by giving people more rights, by democratizing more and more parts of society and giving people the right to access the essentials of life like health care, food, and shelter. I think someday we'll look back on this time in history and think it was absolutely crazy that health care wasn't considered a fundamental right.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
> where the means of production are owned collectively. This, right there, is inherently oppressive because it removes individual liberty and initiative and it requires enforcement. The same goes with lack of private property. That's why, in fine oppression is inevitable. In this same way as I think "implementing socialism" has to start by violent means. I think some people are so idealistic that they don't, or don't want to, realise this. Now, what liberal countries have done is to take some socialist ideas and to implement them as social policies within the liberal capitalist system. That is very different from socialism and a working approach. There's a quote, with many variants and attributed to many people, which I think holds a lot of truth: "Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart. Any man who is still a socialist at age 40 has no head.".
- maxbond 4y ago
  You have the freedom to move your body in whatever way you please, until the point where your fist contacts someone's nose. I don't think anyone would argue this is oppressive. In the same way, everyone had a right to participate in whatever kind of economic activity they please, until that becomes holding hostage the tools society needs to provide for itself. There's no law of physics which says society has to be changed through violence. In my lifetime I've seen the rights of LGBTQ people extended dramatically, and it hasn't been through violent means. Regarding whether violence is necessary to "enforce" a lack of private property, please see my response elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33965787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33965787 You're free to view me as too idealistic, you're entitled to your opinion and it doesn't disturb me, but I'd point out that the other side of this coin is being so cynical that you become blind to how society is changing and underestimate what is possible to achieve. Personally I think it's better to air on the side of optimism; I'd rather try and fail than to despair, and while cynicism can often have an aloof detachment that feels very intelligent, I think it's skin deep.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    I don't know what LGBTQ rights have to do with socialism. If anything they are the progression of enlightenment liberalism. Overall, I think your reply somewhat proves my point about idealism and denial of reality. And that's fine in principle but can have dangerous consequences (road to hell is paved with good intentions kind of thing).
    - maxbond 4y ago
      It's an example of a successful social movement to bring about positive change without violence. You're entitled to feel however you like, if you want to express that as an argument I'm happy to respond to it, if you don't feel so moved than that's fine too. But if I don't know what about my response makes you say that, there's not really anything more for me to add. (If you do elaborate, I won't see it until tomorrow because I'm going to log off for the evening now.)
- 4y ago