Authoritarianism Poll

[Revoltingest]

I don't think you can make a capitalism = more liberty equation then. By looking at the bottom 20 countries in the list only North Korea is a centralised socialist societies while all others are capitalist and all of them are basically pretty much just as repressive as the other. It's also good to note that liberal democracies only started to emerged after WWI and truly blossomed after WWII, a full century after capitalism became the dominant economical doctrine in the West. Ironically things like unionisation were fundamental to the rise of liberal democracies and unions used to be considered downright communist organisations.

Indeed Canada isn't a purely socialist country based on a system like Marxism-Leninism or Maoism. But it does have socialist policies. Universal healthcare is a socialist entreprise. It makes healthcare services under the absolute control of the State and it's population. That's a socialist idea applied to a specific sector and it proved to be very successful. In my province, the State owns the power company (Hydro-Quebec) and it has a monopoly. It also is a great success. These are socialist measures. It would be more accurate to describe Canada as a fairly hybrid system where capitalism is the norm in most sector, but where some other potential sectors of economical activity, socialism is the rule. This combination has proven more effective at providing freedom than "a more pure definition of capitalism".

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[epronovost]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Fine with me.

PS: just to make it clear, I do not advocate for marxist-leninist, castrism, maoism or any form of centrally planned, non democratical forms of socialism.

 

[Stevicus]

And yet, the real world results of capitalism offer greater liberty
& prosperity than socialism's historical & current examples, eg,
N Korea, Cuba, USSR, PRC.

Speaking of NK, I see that they just opened up a new city.

North Korea's Kim Jong-un opens new city and 'socialist utopia' of Samjiyon

The city, named Samjiyon, is envisaged as a “socialist utopia” with new apartments, hotels, a ski resort and commercial, cultural and medical facilities, it reported.

KCNA said it could accommodate 4,000 families and had 380 blocks of public and industrial buildings spanning “hundreds of hectares”.

The city is one of the largest economic initiatives Kim has launched as part of his drive for a self-reliant economy, but its construction was delayed, chiefly by shortages in construction materials and labour as a result of international sanctions imposed to curb Pyongyang’s nuclear programme.

On Tuesday Pyongyang warned again that its year-end deadline for the US to change its “hostile policies” was approaching and said it was up to Washington to decide what “Christmas gift” comes at the end of the year.

 

[Revoltingest]

Speaking of NK, I see that they just opened up a new city.

North Korea's Kim Jong-un opens new city and 'socialist utopia' of Samjiyon

I can't wait to move there, & escape the oppressive running capitalist dog patrioligarchy here.

 

[epronovost]

I can't wait to move there, & escape the oppressive running capitalist dog patrioligarchy here.

Well, if you want to escape the patriarchy maybe don't go to one of the most misogynistic country on Earth. Communist revolutionnary groups are almost all feminists for about as long as they need soldiers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, if you want to escape the patriarchy maybe don't go to one of the most misogynistic country on Earth. Communist revolutionnary groups are almost all feminists for about as long as they need soldiers.

But it's theoretically a utopia.

 

[epronovost]

But it's theoretically a utopia.

Every system is theoretically a perfect utopia (and then again, Communist regimes like that of the USSR didn't brand itself as a utopia, but as the regime that would bring about the utopia and, toward its end, simply as the best regime there was on the planet and as close as where one could get from a utopia). Notice the decreased expectation as reality catches up.

 

[Stevicus]

Fine with me.

PS: just to make it clear, I do not advocate for marxist-leninist, castrism, maoism or any form of centrally planned, non democratical forms of socialism.

One problem that I've noticed with the anti-communist viewpoint is that all too often, it fails to take into consideration the reasons of how and why some countries fell into revolution and became communist in the first place. Anti-communists rarely study history, and of those who do, they fail to understand its causes and effects.

Likewise, those with an anti-progressive viewpoint fail to recognize how and why the West was able to prevent revolution and remain non-communist. They seem to think it's all due to the efforts of our military and national security apparatus (which is an authoritarian position to take). They don't seem to realize that all these social programs they disparage so much are there to bring about political stability so that we don't fall into disarray, chaos, or revolution.

 

[epronovost]

One problem that I've noticed with the anti-communist viewpoint is that all too often, it fails to take into consideration the reasons of how and why some countries fell into revolution and became communist in the first place. Anti-communists rarely study history, and of those who do, they fail to understand its causes and effects.

Likewise, those with an anti-progressive viewpoint fail to recognize how and why the West was able to prevent revolution and remain non-communist. They seem to think it's all due to the efforts of our military and national security apparatus (which is an authoritarian position to take). They don't seem to realize that all these social programs they disparage so much are there to bring about political stability so that we don't fall into disarray, chaos, or revolution.

Indeed, the countries that negotiated and gave reason or at least a democratic means to adress the social grievances of the lower and middle class managed to avoid the worst of revolutions. As I mentionned earlier, the fact that unions managed to improve wealth distribution and work conditions was paramount in creating liberal democracies as we know them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Every system is theoretically a perfect utopia (and then again, Communist regimes like that of the USSR didn't brand itself as a utopia, but as the regime that would bring about the utopia and, toward its end, simply as the best regime there was on the planet and as close as where one could get from a utopia). Notice the decreased expectation as reality catches up.

Despite any similarities, the 2 systems have different emergent property trends.
Basically: The more socialist, the more authoritarian.
Did you read the thread I linked?

 

[epronovost]

Despite any similarities, the 2 systems have different emergent property trends.
Basically: The more socialist, the more authoritarian.
Did you read the thread I linked?

I did, I find your analysis flawed. Not uninteresting, but flawed. It fails to take into account the miriad forms and variations within the capitalist and socialist framework as well as a lack of depth when it comes to historical analysis. In other words, it lacks nuances.

 

[Revoltingest]

I did, I find your analysis flawed. Not uninteresting, but flawed. It fails to take into account the miriad forms and variations within the capitalist and socialist framework as well as a lack of depth when it comes to historical analysis. In other words, it lacks nuances.

No, it takes them all into account.
How?
1) The same system fundamentals apply to all.
2) The historical record bears this out.
Examine all large countries since the inception of socialism.
Oppression correlates with increased socialism for all.

"Nuance" shouldn't create a fog wherein anything is true.
Stick to fundamentals...theory + empirical results...the apples to
apples kind, not large countries compared to selected small ones.

 

[epronovost]

No, it takes them all into account.
How?
1) The same system fundamentals apply to all.
2) The historical record bears this out.
Examine all large countries since the inception of socialism.
Oppression correlates with increased socialism for all.

"Nuance" shouldn't create a fog wherein anything is true.
Stick to fundamentals...theory + empirical results...the apples to
apples kind, not large countries compared to selected small ones.

Then you seem to completely forget that liberal socialism, the system in place in most european countries has produced less authoritarian regimes than a more capitalist system. That's a fact. Liberal socialism might be the "least socialist of all school of socialism", going as far as tolerating capitalist venture yet under strict supervision and not in strategic sectors, but it's considered a form of socialism and it produced so far the least authoritarian regimes in modern history. Unless, unlike the general concensus amongst economist and political analyst, you don't consider liberal socialism as form of socialism for X or Y reason in which case, you might have a leg to stand on. Most forms of socialism were never attempted in real life and others only for short period of time in pretty much the worst circomstance like communalism was attempted in Northern Syria for example (with some impressive successes despite the state of war).

 

[Revoltingest]

Then you seem to completely forget that liberal socialism....

You keep making it about my forgetting this or that, my lacking
nuance. It's not about me. Try to be less personal, & address
the issues instead.
The real problem in these discussions of socialism is not using
a dictionary definition (ie, the people controlling the means of production).
Instead, pointing to capitalist countries with desired social policies,
calling them "socialist", & then deducing that socialism doesn't tend
towards authoritarianism. I disagree with that line of thought.
It ignores my claim that the more socialist (the word used as per
dictionaries) a countries, the more authoritarian it tends to be.
Countries closest to the full blown socialism end of the spectrum
are all oppressive, eg, N Korea. Contrast that with the most
capitalist countries, eg, Canuckistan. The trend is there.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

2) The historical record bears this out.
Examine all large countries since the inception of socialism.
Oppression correlates with increased socialism for all.

That just doesn't pan out in real life. America has led socialism and more capitalism, and is overall less free and more opposed. Canada, Norway, etc. all usual examples, they have more elements of socialism and less laissez faire and have citizens who are overall more free and better off. In other words, they reigned in the free hand, put a tacker, and put it to work for the people instead of the few. At that point it pretty much at that point it ceases to be laissez faire capitalism.

 

[epronovost]

You keep making it about my forgetting this or that, my lacking
nuance. It's not about me.
The real problem is that you're not using any dictionary definition
of "socialism" (ie, the people controlling the means of production).
Instead, you've pointed to capitalist countries whose social policies
you like, called them "socialist", & then deduced that socialism
doesn't tend towards authoritarianism.
This ignores my claim that the more socialist (the word used as per
dictionaries) a countries, the more authoritarian it tends to be.
Countries closest to the full blown socialism end of the spectrum
are all oppressive, eg, N Korea. Contrast that with the most
capitalist countries, eg, Canuckistan. The trend is there.

Don't use a usual dictionnary to discuss politics in such a fashion. Use a political dictionnary, a specialised dictionnary, to discuss those things. Using a usual dictionnary for such analysis will prevent you from catching nuances. There are many forms of socialism one of which is liberal socialism. You can't insert a "degree of purity" in the discussion either without basically creating an ad hoc argument; declaring that the most pure form of socialism is basically the form that fits the best your hypothesis. Do you see what I'm trying to point out or do I make no sense?

 

[Revoltingest]

That just doesn't pan out in real life.

Oh, really...which are the socialist countries with more liberty than Ameristan
or the even more capitalistic Canuckistan? And no, you don't get to cite
capitalist countries like Denmark just cuz they have likable social
programs....socialism is about owning the means of production...not kidney
transplants & kissed booboos.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't use a usual dictionnary to discuss politics in such a fashion. Use a political dictionnary, a specialised dictionnary, to discuss those things. Using a usual dictionnary for such analysis will prevent you from catching nuances. There are many forms of socialism one of which is liberal socialism. You can't insert a "degree of purity" in the discussion either without basically creating an ad hoc argument; declaring that the most pure form of socialism is basically the form that fits the best your hypothesis. Do you see what I'm trying to point out or do I make no sense?

IOW, the socialism which you praise is really capitalism with generous social benefits.
If that's the case, we've no argument.
But you need a better name than one which conflicts with all dictionaries.

You're still not addressing the real socialist countries, eg, N Korea, Cuba, former USSR.
Would you defend them has having more liberty than less socialist countries?

 

[Morningstar1312]

Tis better than being under the boot heel of the commie ruling class.

There... wouldn’t be a ruling class at all. The workers themselves would own the means of production, not some higher ruling class. It’s a democratization of the economy, there’s no need for some hierarchy to help manage it.

 

[epronovost]

IOW, the socialism which you praise is really capitalism with generous social benefits.
If that's the case, we've no argument.
But you need a better name than one which conflicts with all dictionaries.

I disagree it's capitalism with generous social benefits. It's capitalism with tight control from a democratically elected government (hence the "controlled by the people") and excluded (or almost excluded) from key sector of economical activities like energy production, healthcare, education, etc. That's a form of socialism called liberal socialism

You're still not addressing the real socialist countries, eg, N Korea, Cuba, former USSR.
Would you defend them has having more liberty than less socialist countries?

It depends on which countries and which one amongst them. North Korea is far more authoritarian then Cuba for example. It also depends whome you compare them. If you compare these countries to Saudi Arabia, the RDC, the RCA, etc. They are pretty much equivalent. China and Russia are fairly comparable too. Of course, if you compare them to Western Europe or North America they are much worse, but I would classify a lot of those countries as socialist since their political and economical system is described most accurately as liberal socialism which is a form of socialism.

To make an analogy, socialism is sugar and capitalism is salt. All salt or all sugar is very bad, equally bad. The best place is the perfect blend of sugar and salt. That place is liberal socialism in my opinion.