3 ms·
The societal structure under The Party was oligarchical; not socialist. The whole point was that it vilified the goals of socialism under the name of socialism.
by wildrhythms 4y ago
The societal structure under The Party was oligarchical; not socialist. The whole point was that it vilified the goals of socialism under the name of socialism.
- cratermoon 4y agoDid you mean totalitarianism? Orwell was a democratic socialist.
- xvedejas 4y agoAs someone who is neither, I think it's clear that plenty of democratic socialists are anti-nondemocratic socialism. Surely the biggest critics of a government falsely claiming to pursue an ideology, are those true believers of the ideology, seeing their ideas used as cover for something else?
- int_19h 4y agoIt goes beyond indignation; there's long-standing bad blood between two camps. Soviets specifically actively persecuted democratic socialists (Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries) during the 1917 revolution. In late USSR, some political dissidents also self-identified as some kind of demsoc or demcom, such as e.g. Aleksandr Skobov.
- schoen 4y agoIn-world, it gets referred to as "oligarchical collectivism" by a purported critic.
- cratermoon 4y ago"Oligarchical Collectivism" refers to Stalinism, not socialism.
- schoen 4y agoI mean "the societal structure under The Party" as referred to by wildrhythms above.
- idlewords 4y agoThis is the ANSII standard critique of socialism, that it will invariably assume an oligarchal form no matter how lofty the ideals of the founders. The "no true Scotsman" arguments about what does and doesn't constitute real socialism always seem miss this point.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]