6 ms·

Which is why socialism trends to authoritarianism in practice. Freedom requires keeping the responsibility, duties, and outcomes clustered together as tightly

Which is why socialism trends to authoritarianism in practice. Freedom requires keeping the responsibility, duties, and outcomes clustered together as tightly as possible. If I break it, it affects me.

Z7YCx5ieof4Std 4y ago
Same as conservatism
- soco 4y ago
  Uninvolved citizens lead to authoritarianism. Either some "enlightened leader" will take over the conservatives, or some apparatchik system will take over the socialism... or any other forms of soul- and life-crushing abominations just waiting to take over.
dbingham 4y ago
The United States is arguably one of the least "socialist" of the developed countries and by far one of the worst for surveillance and authoritarianism. Indeed it's on the cusp of a full scale fascist take over. This isn't nearly as simple as "socialism trends toward authoritarianism". Which let's also clarify what we're calling "socialism" here. In this case we using it to describe having the government provide a social safety net. All too often "socialism" gets applied as a blanket term for "any government provided service" which obfuscates the actual issues rather than clarifying anything. It just makes the whole conversation devolve into a pointless ideological battle.
- rendall 4y ago
  > it's on the cusp of a full scale fascist take over Not really. Or, rather, that claim is being used as justification for overreach and power grabs from the same authoritarians who claim to be against fascism.
  - mkmk3 4y ago
    "No, but yes, because it's a different unnamed party than the one I imagine you intended"?
    - luckylion 4y ago
      Is every authoritarian a fascist? If not, that statement makes perfect sense: there's no looming fascist takeover, but authoritarians are claiming there is to influence the population and get more power.
      - rendall 4y ago
        This is the correct answer.
      - snapplebobapple 4y ago
        Finally, another person who thinks it's weird a moderately sized swath of humanity has no concept or historical understanding of the myriad different types of authoritarians spawned by society over the years. Nobody remembers the party authoritarian government of pre 1990's Mexico? Nobody notices present day Singapore organized under the same??? Nobody remember Pinochet in Chile for an example of military authoritarianism? How about Myanmar??? And why is it always the Marxist leaning types with this blindness? It's like they are jealous of their equivalently terrifying sibling ideology and only have eyes for it or something...
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Is every authoritarian a fascist? In principal, no, non-fascist authoritarianisms can exist. In modern practice, they are comparatively rare. Leninism in the narrow sense was internationalist rather than nationalist, but most of its later derivatives (starting, in the USSR with “socialism in one country”) have shaded progressively more toward nationalism. Superficially “left” authoritarianisms (again, largely, Leninism and its derivatives) may have a rhetorical bent toward egalitarianism that contrasts with fascisms elitist/heirarchicalism, but even in old-school Leninism its distinction from Marxism is its adoption of vanguardism which naturally tends toward hierarchy, and that’s even more intense in its subsequent derivatives, both institutionalized with state power and, in many case, in revolutionary movements; the necessity of armed power to maintain authoritarian systems makes institutionalized authoritarianism naturally tend toward militarism even when as movements they might present as anti-militaristic. All of the modern authoritarian movements are corporatist, whether by bringing “outside” groups formally into regime decision-making, or abolishing them and replacing them with formal state institutions, or by assuring that “outside” interests are run by people connected to the regime and informally coordinating power, even if there aren’t part of formal decisionmaking.
- a4a4a4a4 4y ago
  > Indeed it's on the cusp of a full scale fascist take over. From the democrats or republicans? ("Both" would be closest to correct, if we assume your statement is true.) Edit: oooh did I make the left or the right angry with this comment? Both sides are authoritarian and infringing on your rights wherever they can, while simultaneously convincing their followers that only the opponents do it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - toss1 4y ago
    Nonsense. Yes, there are always elements of the far-left and far-right who lean authoritarian, and any of the "-isms" (fascism, communism, etc.) are fully correlated or anti-correlated to authoritarianism. But, in this current situation, to claim it is "both sides" is either naive or willful ignorance, and plays right into the authoritarian line. The FACT is that a number of countries have fallen from democracy into authoritarianism (Hungary, turky, etc.), and these are Right-Wing movements. In the US, while the Dem party works to protect voting rights, the Republican party has gone full authoritarian, literally stating that democracy is less preferable thatn their rule, actively taking measures to select their voters, control the academy, the press, and industry, all of which are flat-out authoritarian. Their leader literally has just declared that "I am your retribution.”. That is not the statement of anyone even remotely working to lead a democratic society; it is the statement of someone who wants authority to lead a minority in crushing and killing anyone who opposes him. False equivalency is a cheap cop-out at best, and more accurately actively promoting ignorance and failure to respond to emerging authoritarianism. In the current situation, it is frankly disgusting. Stop it.
    - 988747 4y ago
      [dead]
    - a4a4a4a4 4y ago
      No, I don’t think I will stop it, until people start to realize the democrats are doing the same thing. Also, what an authoritarian response for someone claiming not to be authoritarian. The Democrats are actively ignoring Supreme Court rulings (Bruen case and the Hochul administration in NY doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them they could not do, which was to declare the entire state a “sensitive location”). The Democrats also redraw voting districts as they like, just as they accuse the republicans of. You have states like CA intentionally leaking the names, addresses and purchase lists of gun owners. The entirety of “social authoritarianism” belongs to the democrats. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/561825-comedians-are-right-authoritarian-democrats-are-also-a-problem/ https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/561825-comedians-are-ri...
988747 4y ago
[dead]
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Which is why socialism trends to authoritarianism in practice False. Authoritarianism has nothing to do with socialism. Authoritarianism thrives because the people fail at holding their leaders accountable for their actions. The leaders will keep overreaching with their power as long as they see no consequences for them.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  I agree that socialism isn't inherently authoritarian but it does enable authoritarianism when you aim to achieve socialism through centralized administration.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Not really. There are countries that are social democracies but have decentralized power. Look at Germany. Or Austria.
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      Those countries are pretty far from achieving big S Socialism.
7952 4y ago
Surely a massive breach of that cluster is high income inequality. And that leads sometimes to socialism as one possible reaction.
_vbnz 4y ago
This has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism doesn't have welfare like this, it'd have full employment - look at the Soviet Union for example.
- nyolfen 4y ago
  the country with 20% of its labor force in penal colonies at its peak?
  - Spivak 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_in... I hate to tell you this but > The US incarceration rate peaked in 2008 when about 1,000 in 100,000 U.S. adults were behind bars. That's 760 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages. This incarceration rate was similar to the average incarceration levels in the Soviet Union during the existence of the infamous Gulag system, when the Soviet Union's population reached 168 million, and 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in the Gulag prison camps and colonies.
    - nyolfen 4y ago
      > We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4—5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'. > The total of arrests given in the Shvernik report for 1937-38 is 1 372 392, of whom 681 692 are given as shot. The total entering Gulag camps in that period as given by Zemskov is 1 853 513. this is for one year mind you https://sovietinfo.tripod.com/CNQ-Victims_Stalinism.pdf https://sovietinfo.tripod.com/CNQ-Victims_Stalinism.pdf
- HeckFeck 4y ago
  It's not him who works that counts, but he who counts how many are working - J. Stalin, probably
jameshart 4y ago
The article makes the point that the benefits agency’s drive towards surveillance is largely driven by the need to defend against charges coming from right-wing Danish politicians that there is widespread benefits fraud and waste. The conservative preference to avoid one undeserving person receiving benefits even if it risks the liberty and security of many deserving people is what pushes towards authoritarian implementations of benefits policies. You see the same in the US - it’s states like Florida that insist on drug testing for benefits recipients. The issue is not the benefits program - it’s that the benefits program is being administered by a conservative government who fundamentally believe that benefits should only go to those who ‘deserve’ them. The authoritarianism problem is not ‘socialist programs’ - it’s what happens when conservative perspectives on how socialist programs should be administered gain sway. In Denmark, even a broadly left coalition government contains more conservative members, and has to appease conservative voters to maintain power.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  That's literally the same argument that many people painted as "right wing" would make. Creating government programs that are administered by bureaucrats results in them eventually being abused for political reasons. That's why counter arguments are made for more decentralized forms of help like local charities or other independent support structures e.g. churches, clubs, insurance, etc. Authoritarianism is not inherently socialist or conservative, it can infect either end of the political spectrum.

Z7YCx5ieof4Std 4y ago

Same as conservatism

soco 4y ago
Uninvolved citizens lead to authoritarianism. Either some "enlightened leader" will take over the conservatives, or some apparatchik system will take over the socialism... or any other forms of soul- and life-crushing abominations just waiting to take over.

dbingham 4y ago

The United States is arguably one of the least "socialist" of the developed countries and by far one of the worst for surveillance and authoritarianism. Indeed it's on the cusp of a full scale fascist take over. This isn't nearly as simple as "socialism trends toward authoritarianism". Which let's also clarify what we're calling "socialism" here. In this case we using it to describe having the government provide a social safety net. All too often "socialism" gets applied as a blanket term for "any government provided service" which obfuscates the actual issues rather than clarifying anything. It just makes the whole conversation devolve into a pointless ideological battle.

rendall 4y ago
> it's on the cusp of a full scale fascist take over Not really. Or, rather, that claim is being used as justification for overreach and power grabs from the same authoritarians who claim to be against fascism.
- mkmk3 4y ago
  "No, but yes, because it's a different unnamed party than the one I imagine you intended"?
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Is every authoritarian a fascist? If not, that statement makes perfect sense: there's no looming fascist takeover, but authoritarians are claiming there is to influence the population and get more power.
    - rendall 4y ago
      This is the correct answer.
    - snapplebobapple 4y ago
      Finally, another person who thinks it's weird a moderately sized swath of humanity has no concept or historical understanding of the myriad different types of authoritarians spawned by society over the years. Nobody remembers the party authoritarian government of pre 1990's Mexico? Nobody notices present day Singapore organized under the same??? Nobody remember Pinochet in Chile for an example of military authoritarianism? How about Myanmar??? And why is it always the Marxist leaning types with this blindness? It's like they are jealous of their equivalently terrifying sibling ideology and only have eyes for it or something...
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Is every authoritarian a fascist? In principal, no, non-fascist authoritarianisms can exist. In modern practice, they are comparatively rare. Leninism in the narrow sense was internationalist rather than nationalist, but most of its later derivatives (starting, in the USSR with “socialism in one country”) have shaded progressively more toward nationalism. Superficially “left” authoritarianisms (again, largely, Leninism and its derivatives) may have a rhetorical bent toward egalitarianism that contrasts with fascisms elitist/heirarchicalism, but even in old-school Leninism its distinction from Marxism is its adoption of vanguardism which naturally tends toward hierarchy, and that’s even more intense in its subsequent derivatives, both institutionalized with state power and, in many case, in revolutionary movements; the necessity of armed power to maintain authoritarian systems makes institutionalized authoritarianism naturally tend toward militarism even when as movements they might present as anti-militaristic. All of the modern authoritarian movements are corporatist, whether by bringing “outside” groups formally into regime decision-making, or abolishing them and replacing them with formal state institutions, or by assuring that “outside” interests are run by people connected to the regime and informally coordinating power, even if there aren’t part of formal decisionmaking.
a4a4a4a4 4y ago
> Indeed it's on the cusp of a full scale fascist take over. From the democrats or republicans? ("Both" would be closest to correct, if we assume your statement is true.) Edit: oooh did I make the left or the right angry with this comment? Both sides are authoritarian and infringing on your rights wherever they can, while simultaneously convincing their followers that only the opponents do it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- toss1 4y ago
  Nonsense. Yes, there are always elements of the far-left and far-right who lean authoritarian, and any of the "-isms" (fascism, communism, etc.) are fully correlated or anti-correlated to authoritarianism. But, in this current situation, to claim it is "both sides" is either naive or willful ignorance, and plays right into the authoritarian line. The FACT is that a number of countries have fallen from democracy into authoritarianism (Hungary, turky, etc.), and these are Right-Wing movements. In the US, while the Dem party works to protect voting rights, the Republican party has gone full authoritarian, literally stating that democracy is less preferable thatn their rule, actively taking measures to select their voters, control the academy, the press, and industry, all of which are flat-out authoritarian. Their leader literally has just declared that "I am your retribution.”. That is not the statement of anyone even remotely working to lead a democratic society; it is the statement of someone who wants authority to lead a minority in crushing and killing anyone who opposes him. False equivalency is a cheap cop-out at best, and more accurately actively promoting ignorance and failure to respond to emerging authoritarianism. In the current situation, it is frankly disgusting. Stop it.
  - 988747 4y ago
    [dead]
  - a4a4a4a4 4y ago
    No, I don’t think I will stop it, until people start to realize the democrats are doing the same thing. Also, what an authoritarian response for someone claiming not to be authoritarian. The Democrats are actively ignoring Supreme Court rulings (Bruen case and the Hochul administration in NY doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them they could not do, which was to declare the entire state a “sensitive location”). The Democrats also redraw voting districts as they like, just as they accuse the republicans of. You have states like CA intentionally leaking the names, addresses and purchase lists of gun owners. The entirety of “social authoritarianism” belongs to the democrats. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/561825-comedians-are-right-authoritarian-democrats-are-also-a-problem/ https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/561825-comedians-are-ri...

988747 4y ago

[dead]

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>Which is why socialism trends to authoritarianism in practice False. Authoritarianism has nothing to do with socialism. Authoritarianism thrives because the people fail at holding their leaders accountable for their actions. The leaders will keep overreaching with their power as long as they see no consequences for them.

throwaway4aday 4y ago
I agree that socialism isn't inherently authoritarian but it does enable authoritarianism when you aim to achieve socialism through centralized administration.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  Not really. There are countries that are social democracies but have decentralized power. Look at Germany. Or Austria.
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    Those countries are pretty far from achieving big S Socialism.

7952 4y ago

Surely a massive breach of that cluster is high income inequality. And that leads sometimes to socialism as one possible reaction.

_vbnz 4y ago

This has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism doesn't have welfare like this, it'd have full employment - look at the Soviet Union for example.

nyolfen 4y ago
the country with 20% of its labor force in penal colonies at its peak?
- Spivak 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_in... I hate to tell you this but > The US incarceration rate peaked in 2008 when about 1,000 in 100,000 U.S. adults were behind bars. That's 760 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages. This incarceration rate was similar to the average incarceration levels in the Soviet Union during the existence of the infamous Gulag system, when the Soviet Union's population reached 168 million, and 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in the Gulag prison camps and colonies.
  - nyolfen 4y ago
    > We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4—5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'. > The total of arrests given in the Shvernik report for 1937-38 is 1 372 392, of whom 681 692 are given as shot. The total entering Gulag camps in that period as given by Zemskov is 1 853 513. this is for one year mind you https://sovietinfo.tripod.com/CNQ-Victims_Stalinism.pdf https://sovietinfo.tripod.com/CNQ-Victims_Stalinism.pdf
HeckFeck 4y ago
It's not him who works that counts, but he who counts how many are working - J. Stalin, probably

jameshart 4y ago

The article makes the point that the benefits agency’s drive towards surveillance is largely driven by the need to defend against charges coming from right-wing Danish politicians that there is widespread benefits fraud and waste. The conservative preference to avoid one undeserving person receiving benefits even if it risks the liberty and security of many deserving people is what pushes towards authoritarian implementations of benefits policies. You see the same in the US - it’s states like Florida that insist on drug testing for benefits recipients. The issue is not the benefits program - it’s that the benefits program is being administered by a conservative government who fundamentally believe that benefits should only go to those who ‘deserve’ them. The authoritarianism problem is not ‘socialist programs’ - it’s what happens when conservative perspectives on how socialist programs should be administered gain sway. In Denmark, even a broadly left coalition government contains more conservative members, and has to appease conservative voters to maintain power.

throwaway4aday 4y ago
That's literally the same argument that many people painted as "right wing" would make. Creating government programs that are administered by bureaucrats results in them eventually being abused for political reasons. That's why counter arguments are made for more decentralized forms of help like local charities or other independent support structures e.g. churches, clubs, insurance, etc. Authoritarianism is not inherently socialist or conservative, it can infect either end of the political spectrum.