2 ms·

True, but you could also argue that limiting the condition (b) rather than (a) is also a way to address the power imbalance. Things like social programs, basic

by js8 4y ago

True, but you could also argue that limiting the condition (b) rather than (a) is also a way to address the power imbalance. Things like social programs, basic income, unions and cooperatives try to address (b) instead of (a).

int_19h 4y ago
Sure, and that's how you end up with authoritarian strains of socialism.
- js8 4y ago
  I don't think it's necessarily true, I mean making sure that private capital doesn't exist seems also pretty authoritarian to me. I also think there is a value difference between socialism and democracy (decisions are made society-wide, by equal citizens participation) on one side and conservativism and authoritarianism on the other (decisions are made society-wide, by selected authorities/elites), even though from a liberal viewpoint (decisions are made individually by affected individuals where possible) they might seem similar (because in both the decisions are made society-wide). Measures against (a) or (b) can be designed and implemented both in democratic or authoritarian way. And in fact, basic income is on the liberal-socialist, aka "anarchist", spectrum rather than on socialist-conservative, aka "communist", spectrum. (Both spectra offer different solutions than the current liberal-conservative, aka "capitalist", spectrum.)
  - int_19h 4y ago
    > I mean making sure that private capital doesn't exist seems also pretty authoritarian to me. Not really. It's really the other way around - the existence of private capital requires the state to enforce it. The only thing that makes, say, a privately owned factory actually "owned" is the fact that the owner can get the police to evict anyone trying to use it without the authorization, and drag any such miscreants to the courts. If society simply refuses to recognize private ownership of capital, and, as a consequence, refuses to enforce ownership claims, how is that authoritarian? There's strictly less use of force involved. I would also argue that "democratic" and "authoritarian" are not actually opposites - it's entirely possible for a democratic majority to use authoritarian measures to keep the minority in check.

by js8 4y ago

int_19h 4y ago

Sure, and that's how you end up with authoritarian strains of socialism.

js8 4y ago
I don't think it's necessarily true, I mean making sure that private capital doesn't exist seems also pretty authoritarian to me. I also think there is a value difference between socialism and democracy (decisions are made society-wide, by equal citizens participation) on one side and conservativism and authoritarianism on the other (decisions are made society-wide, by selected authorities/elites), even though from a liberal viewpoint (decisions are made individually by affected individuals where possible) they might seem similar (because in both the decisions are made society-wide). Measures against (a) or (b) can be designed and implemented both in democratic or authoritarian way. And in fact, basic income is on the liberal-socialist, aka "anarchist", spectrum rather than on socialist-conservative, aka "communist", spectrum. (Both spectra offer different solutions than the current liberal-conservative, aka "capitalist", spectrum.)
- int_19h 4y ago
  > I mean making sure that private capital doesn't exist seems also pretty authoritarian to me. Not really. It's really the other way around - the existence of private capital requires the state to enforce it. The only thing that makes, say, a privately owned factory actually "owned" is the fact that the owner can get the police to evict anyone trying to use it without the authorization, and drag any such miscreants to the courts. If society simply refuses to recognize private ownership of capital, and, as a consequence, refuses to enforce ownership claims, how is that authoritarian? There's strictly less use of force involved. I would also argue that "democratic" and "authoritarian" are not actually opposites - it's entirely possible for a democratic majority to use authoritarian measures to keep the minority in check.