6 ms·

Please don't conflate socialism with authoritarianism. There's non-authoritarian socialists; there's non-socialist authoritarians. They are two independent axis

Please don't conflate socialism with authoritarianism. There's non-authoritarian socialists; there's non-socialist authoritarians. They are two independent axis. In the case of the EU, it's a capitalist authoritarian project.

mytailorisrich 2y ago
It's not possible to achieve socialism without authoritarianism because that's the only way to enforce social ownership of the means of production against private ownership... Edit: There is no meaningul difference between socialism and communism, especially on this aspect (ownership of means of production), which is key to conclude that the system must be authoritarian. "According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death"" [1] The 'distinction' was created by Lenin and the Bolcheviks for political purposes. "The distinction between communism and socialism became salient in 1918 after the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the All-Russian Communist Party, interpreting communism specifically to mean socialists who supported the politics and theories of Bolshevism, Leninism and later that of Marxism–Leninism,[53] although communist parties continued to describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism." [1] In Europe, most socialist parties have evolved to simply seek to implement socialist-inspired ideas within a capitalist society and perhaps state capitalism, whereas communist parties stayed on Lenin's line and seek to overthrow the system to set up a fully socialist society. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
- malermeister 2y ago
  Of course it is. By voluntary association into socialist communes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- WitCanStain 2y ago
  Arguably it is far more authoritarian to enforce private ownership over social ownership.
  - faku312 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Reminds me of a joke: Q: Why do communists only drink green tea? A: Because proper-tea is theft. (And the less said about the violins inherent in the cicstern the better).
- palata 2y ago
  That's just because you don't understand what "socialism" means. Maybe you meant communism? It would still be debatable, but not completely wrong.
  - RandomLensman 2y ago
    What is wrong about the means of production being under social ownership in socialism? Yes, socialism allows also some private property and there is spectrum of how much it is a planned economy but social ownership of the means of production is a central component of socialism.
    - palata 2y ago
      Socialism does not require an authoritarian state, period. It's much larger than that, and it is a gradient. Just like "not being socialist" does not mean that you are libertarian: you can be a moderate liberal. For instance, saying that public transportation should be public (i.e. belong to the state) does not mean that the state is authoritarian. You can have more moderate forms of socialism. I find it interesting that the Wikipedia articles are pretty different in different languages. In French it is much more moderate than in English, for instance: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialisme https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialisme.
      - mytailorisrich 2y ago
        > For instance, saying that public transportation should be public (i.e. belong to the state) does not mean that the state is authoritarian. Sure, but that's not socialism. That's state capitalism at most. There is not gradient. If society is socialist then as per definition and as explained there must be authoritarianism to suppress any private initiative. The article in French says the same thing as I wrote before: "socialist parties" are no longer socialist: "Le socialisme démocratique, c'est-à-dire un socialisme converti à la démocratie libérale et respectueux du jeu parlementaire, représente aujourd'hui la tendance majoritaire des partis socialistes, qui n'envisagent plus la rupture avec l'économie de marché." If they no longer want to get rid of the market economy and private ownership then they are no longer socialist at all! Socialism has demonstrably failed so they have been trying to adapt while keeping the name...

mytailorisrich 2y ago

It's not possible to achieve socialism without authoritarianism because that's the only way to enforce social ownership of the means of production against private ownership... Edit: There is no meaningul difference between socialism and communism, especially on this aspect (ownership of means of production), which is key to conclude that the system must be authoritarian. "According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death"" [1] The 'distinction' was created by Lenin and the Bolcheviks for political purposes. "The distinction between communism and socialism became salient in 1918 after the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the All-Russian Communist Party, interpreting communism specifically to mean socialists who supported the politics and theories of Bolshevism, Leninism and later that of Marxism–Leninism,[53] although communist parties continued to describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism." [1] In Europe, most socialist parties have evolved to simply seek to implement socialist-inspired ideas within a capitalist society and perhaps state capitalism, whereas communist parties stayed on Lenin's line and seek to overthrow the system to set up a fully socialist society. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

malermeister 2y ago
Of course it is. By voluntary association into socialist communes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
WitCanStain 2y ago
Arguably it is far more authoritarian to enforce private ownership over social ownership.
- faku312 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Reminds me of a joke: Q: Why do communists only drink green tea? A: Because proper-tea is theft. (And the less said about the violins inherent in the cicstern the better).
palata 2y ago
That's just because you don't understand what "socialism" means. Maybe you meant communism? It would still be debatable, but not completely wrong.
- RandomLensman 2y ago
  What is wrong about the means of production being under social ownership in socialism? Yes, socialism allows also some private property and there is spectrum of how much it is a planned economy but social ownership of the means of production is a central component of socialism.
  - palata 2y ago
    Socialism does not require an authoritarian state, period. It's much larger than that, and it is a gradient. Just like "not being socialist" does not mean that you are libertarian: you can be a moderate liberal. For instance, saying that public transportation should be public (i.e. belong to the state) does not mean that the state is authoritarian. You can have more moderate forms of socialism. I find it interesting that the Wikipedia articles are pretty different in different languages. In French it is much more moderate than in English, for instance: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialisme https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialisme.
    - mytailorisrich 2y ago
      > For instance, saying that public transportation should be public (i.e. belong to the state) does not mean that the state is authoritarian. Sure, but that's not socialism. That's state capitalism at most. There is not gradient. If society is socialist then as per definition and as explained there must be authoritarianism to suppress any private initiative. The article in French says the same thing as I wrote before: "socialist parties" are no longer socialist: "Le socialisme démocratique, c'est-à-dire un socialisme converti à la démocratie libérale et respectueux du jeu parlementaire, représente aujourd'hui la tendance majoritaire des partis socialistes, qui n'envisagent plus la rupture avec l'économie de marché." If they no longer want to get rid of the market economy and private ownership then they are no longer socialist at all! Socialism has demonstrably failed so they have been trying to adapt while keeping the name...