4 ms·

> But from a practical perspective: once you've pledged allegiance to greater good absolutely, and set up coercive power structures to enforce same You’re maki

> But from a practical perspective: once you've pledged allegiance to greater good absolutely, and set up coercive power structures to enforce same You’re making the same mistake that is being called out here in the thread. Mussolini left socialism before the Bolsheviks took power in Russia. There was no precedent for socialist governance at the time. To say that being a socialist in 1914 meant “pledging yourself to a greater power absolutely” greatly misses the actual historical context in which those parties developed.

ethbr0 4y ago
My comment was ambivalent as to ultimate socialist governance, and was only opining on the surprisingly frequent path from socialist adherence (in ideals) to fascist government (in actuality). If you're taking issue with socialism being "pledged allegiance to greater good absolutely" (my words), then how would you characterize its primary beliefs?
- comte7092 4y ago
  Is it that frequent though? Outside of a few famous examples, eg mussolini, I am not aware of there being significant number of fascist movements/leaders that started out as socialists, outside of the interwar period. > If you're taking issue with socialism being "pledged allegiance to greater good absolutely" (my words), then how would you characterize its primary beliefs? Wikipedia has a fair standard definition: > Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic and social systems, which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production, with an emphasis on democratic control, such as workers' self-management, as opposed to private ownership. “Pledged allegiance to the greater good” really only applies to socialist parties that seized power through violent revolution, which is self selecting in a sense. Most of Western Europe has long traditions of socialist parties that entered electoral politics and didn’t advocate Stalinist dictatorship. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    The "greater good" in my point would be "social ownership of the means of production, with an emphasis on democratic control, such as workers' self-management" in the case of socialism. With adherent's agreement that that should be realized at any cost. It'd be a nuanced discussion to see how the trajectories of Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Burma, etc. didn't start with some variety of socialism, trend through communism, end up in de facto fascism, and then (mostly) relax back into state-directed capitalism.
    - comte7092 4y ago
      > end up in de facto fascism I’m going to need to know what definition of fascism you’re using here.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        "[...] an authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy."
        comte7092 4y ago
        It is a stretch to call those states “de facto fascist” under that definition. Particularly under these points: > belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race It seems more so that you are reducing facism down to authoritarianism, and therefore authoritarian communist states share behaviors in common with authoritarian fascist states. However, the notion that authoritarianism resembles authoritarianism isn’t particularly notable.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        At least Russia (Russian), China (Han), and Burma have looong had very serious racial superiority concepts encoded into their governments. North Korea and Juche are a bit of a weird case. And Cuba and Vietnam were very multi-ethnic or tolerant to start.

ethbr0 4y ago

My comment was ambivalent as to ultimate socialist governance, and was only opining on the surprisingly frequent path from socialist adherence (in ideals) to fascist government (in actuality). If you're taking issue with socialism being "pledged allegiance to greater good absolutely" (my words), then how would you characterize its primary beliefs?

comte7092 4y ago
Is it that frequent though? Outside of a few famous examples, eg mussolini, I am not aware of there being significant number of fascist movements/leaders that started out as socialists, outside of the interwar period. > If you're taking issue with socialism being "pledged allegiance to greater good absolutely" (my words), then how would you characterize its primary beliefs? Wikipedia has a fair standard definition: > Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic and social systems, which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production, with an emphasis on democratic control, such as workers' self-management, as opposed to private ownership. “Pledged allegiance to the greater good” really only applies to socialist parties that seized power through violent revolution, which is self selecting in a sense. Most of Western Europe has long traditions of socialist parties that entered electoral politics and didn’t advocate Stalinist dictatorship. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
- ethbr0 4y ago
  The "greater good" in my point would be "social ownership of the means of production, with an emphasis on democratic control, such as workers' self-management" in the case of socialism. With adherent's agreement that that should be realized at any cost. It'd be a nuanced discussion to see how the trajectories of Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Burma, etc. didn't start with some variety of socialism, trend through communism, end up in de facto fascism, and then (mostly) relax back into state-directed capitalism.
  - comte7092 4y ago
    > end up in de facto fascism I’m going to need to know what definition of fascism you’re using here.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      "[...] an authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy."
      - comte7092 4y ago
        It is a stretch to call those states “de facto fascist” under that definition. Particularly under these points: > belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race It seems more so that you are reducing facism down to authoritarianism, and therefore authoritarian communist states share behaviors in common with authoritarian fascist states. However, the notion that authoritarianism resembles authoritarianism isn’t particularly notable.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        At least Russia (Russian), China (Han), and Burma have looong had very serious racial superiority concepts encoded into their governments. North Korea and Juche are a bit of a weird case. And Cuba and Vietnam were very multi-ethnic or tolerant to start.