Authoritarianism Poll

[Revoltingest]

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.

That is theory.
But it rests upon unrealistic assumptions about human behavior.
Reality differs, as exemplified by real socialist countries.
The more socialist they are, the more oppressive they are,
eg, N Korea. There are no exceptions at this extreme.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

They do have that, like in Norway where the oil is publicly owned.

 

[Revoltingest]

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



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.

Old saying.....
If you call a tail a "leg", does a dog have 5 legs?
No. a tail is not a leg.
Capitalism is not socialism just because there's free health care.

 

[Revoltingest]

They do have that, like in Norway where the oil is publicly owned.

But it still has a market economy, some elements of socialism notwithstanding.
The other poster is not addressing my claim that full blown socialism
tends towards authoritarianism. There are no counter-examples.
To advocate socialism by using capitalist countries as
positive examples is a poor argument for socialism.

If it's generous social programs we want, then I advise advocating
for those. The best way to finance them is with a strong capitalist
economy. But socialism, ie, a command economy, eg, N Korea
fails both financially & socially.
Why not keep capitalism and provide free health care & other
such benefits?

Btw, if Norway is socialist because "the people" own the oil,
then Ameristan is also socialist because "the people" own
the airwave frequency spectrum. Reductio ad absurdum, eh.

 

[epronovost]

Old saying.....
If you call a tail a "leg", does a dog have 5 legs?
No. a tail is not a leg.
Capitalism is not socialism just because there's free health care.

Is that a criticism of my position or yours? Why do you insist to call liberal socialist country capitalist while liberal socialism is a form of socialism?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is that a criticism of my position or yours? Why do you insist to call liberal socialist country capitalist while liberal socialism is a form of socialism?

That criticizes your terminology.

Something interesting....
Let's say that "socialism" is (or at least includes) capitalism with social benefits.
Were that a valid definition, then the Socialist Only forum should allow those
of us who favor the underlined system? But tis not so.
I advocate for that, but not in a million years would staff allow me in that forum.

 

[epronovost]

I advocate for that, but not in a million years would staff allow me in that forum.

Isn't that a fallacious appeal to authority? The staff of this forum isn't composed of rigorous political scientist, philosopher, economist and historians.

I know we visibly don't agree on terminology which is a problem, but at least we seem to know where exactly we don't agree in terms of terminology. I think the push back you are getting is because of that area.

Do you agree with the idea that a dicotomy of socialism vs capitalism is vulnerable to the horseshoe theory?

 

[Revoltingest]

Isn't that a fallacious appeal to authority

No, it speaks to common usage of the term "socialist".
Even staff know that it's about the means of production,
& not social benefits.
You're using the word incorrectly.

 

[epronovost]

You're using the word incorrectly.

I disagree, I'm using the word correctly since I described liberal socialism as a form of socialism which is widely recognised in academia. In my opinion, you are using the word incorrectly since you are rellying purely on a common definition for a technical discussion. This is actually fallacious. It's also a form of fallacious appeal to authority since a technical definition trumps a usual definition in a technical conversation (example: theory in a scientific context and theory in a casual context don't mean the same thing. In a technical discussion about science the technical definition should prevail).

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree, I'm using the word correctly since I described liberal socialism as a form of socialism which is widely recognised in academia. In my opinion, you are using the word incorrectly since you are rellying purely on a common definition for a technical discussion. This is actually fallacious. It's also a form of fallacious appeal to authority since a technical definition trumps a usual definition in a technical conversation (example: theory in a scientific context and theory in a casual context don't mean the same thing. In a technical discussion about science the technical definition should prevail).

To call it "liberal socialism" is an improvement.
But I addressed prefixless "socialism".

 

[Morningstar1312]

That is theory.
But it rests upon unrealistic assumptions about human behavior.
Reality differs, as exemplified by real socialist countries.
The more socialist they are, the more oppressive they are,
eg, N Korea. There are no exceptions at this extreme.

It’s not just theory though, this has been implemented at many points. One can look towards CNT-controlled Catalonia, KPAM in Korea, rojava, the Zapatistas, Makhnovia, the Paris commune, and more. They all function(ed) as stateless societies based on mutual aid and worker control of production, and were in many cases were successful in their implementations of anarcho-communism, only being threatened by outside powers rather than instability.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Btw, if Norway is socialist because "the people" own the oil,
then Ameristan is also socialist because "the people" own
the airwave frequency spectrum.

It means we have a mixed economy,with gadgets that most definitely are socialist in nature.

 

[Revoltingest]

It’s not just theory though, this has been implemented at many points. One can look towards CNT-controlled Catalonia, KPAM in Korea, rojava, the Zapatistas, Makhnovia, the Paris commune, and more. They all function(ed) as stateless societies based on mutual aid and worker control of production, and were in many cases were successful in their implementations of anarcho-communism, only being threatened by outside powers rather than instability.

I should point out that I'm addressing countries with socialism as the system.
Small groups, eg, communes, wherein membership is voluntary can certainly
work. I've even advocated that people try that out. So long as participation
is voluntary, such communism can work well within a larger capitalist system.
But one cannot say that because that works, applying it to a large country
will also. History shows us that countries going socialist are oppressive.

 

[Revoltingest]

It means we have a mixed economy,with gadgets that most definitely are socialist in nature.

Aye.

 

[Morningstar1312]

I should point out that I'm addressing countries with socialism as the system.
Small groups, eg, communes, wherein membership is voluntary can certainly
work. I've even advocated that people try that out. So long as participation
is voluntary, such communism can work well within a larger capitalist system.
But one cannot say that because that works, applying it to a large country
will also. History shows us that countries going socialist are oppressive.

I’m referencing actual large scale societies, not just communes. The Zapatistas control an area larger than Djibouti, makhnovia occupied all of what is now Ukraine, Catalonia is bigger than Belgium, and rojava has more territory than Slovakia. To reduce them to just communes does no service to what has been accomplished in those regions.

Additionally, an anarcho-communist society would be a voluntary system by definition. One can always go off with like-minded people and form their own little commune within the free territory, even implement capitalism if they so choose. However, when presented with the options of either working under a capitalist, having to work tirelessly just to survive and a system where the basics of survival are provided and people are able to mutually work together voluntarily, the choice seems clear to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I’m referencing actual large scale societies, not just communes. The Zapatistas control an area larger than Djibouti, makhnovia occupied all of what is now Ukraine, Catalonia is bigger than Belgium, and rojava has more territory than Slovakia. To reduce them to just communes does no service to what has been accomplished in those regions.

I picked one of your examples....
Catalonia - Wikipedia
Sounds like a market rather than a command economy.

Additionally, an anarcho-communist society would be a voluntary system by definition. One can always go off with like-minded people and form their own little commune within the free territory, even implement capitalism if they so choose. However, when presented with the options of either working under a capitalist, having to work tirelessly just to survive and a system where the basics of survival are provided and people are able to mutually work together voluntarily, the choice seems clear to me.

It seems you're not addressing socialist countries,but
rather capitalist ones with social programs, who are
"socialist" in name only.
My claim was regarding actual socialist economies,
eg, N Korea, & how they tend to be oppressive. You're
disagreeing with a straw man of your own creation.

At this point I'm just repeating myself for several
different posters making the same claims.
People, please.....give me new material.

 

[Morningstar1312]

I picked one of your examples....
Catalonia - Wikipedia
Sounds like a market rather than a command economy.

Revolutionary Catalonia - Wikipedia
This is what I was talking about. Modern Catalonia, unfortunately, is not as radical as it once was.

It seems you're not addressing socialist countries,but
rather capitalist ones with social programs, who are
"socialist" in name only.
My claim was regarding actual socialist economies,
eg, N Korea, & how they tend to be oppressive. You're
disagreeing with a straw man of your own creation.

Well if you want my thoughts on those countries, I’d say they’re communist in name only, more state capitalists than anything. They transferred control of the means of production to the government, not the workers, thus making a new hierarchy. Plus, the strong state focus in those countries is quite authoritarian, and I certainly would not support them. Plus, any true analysis of marx’s works would outline his anti-authoritarian leanings in his writings.

 

[Revoltingest]

Revolutionary Catalonia - Wikipedia
This is what I was talking about. Modern Catalonia, unfortunately, is not as radical as it once was.

A small scale failed attempt at socialism....how does that address my claim?

Well if you want my thoughts on those countries, I’d say they’re communist in name only, more state capitalists than anything. They transferred control of the means of production to the government, not the workers, thus making a new hierarchy. Plus, the strong state focus in those countries is quite authoritarian, and I certainly would not support them. Plus, any true analysis of marx’s works would outline his anti-authoritarian leanings in his writings.

The no true Scotsman argument, eh.
Marx had some notions about how his system would play out.
But his prophecy has yet to come to pass in any major country.
It smells like religion.

 

[Morningstar1312]

The no true Scotsman argument, eh.
Marx had some notions about how his system would play out.
But his prophecy has yet to come to pass in any major country.
It smells like religion.

The entire point of communism is the worker control of the means of the production, essentially the democratization of the economy. How does the government owning the means of production rather than the workers sound like communism? Also as I have said, there have been many societies structured closer to marx’s original vision.

 

[Revoltingest]

The entire point of communism is the worker control of the means of the production, essentially the democratization of the economy. How does the government owning the means of production rather than the workers sound like communism? Also as I have said, there have been many societies structured closer to marx’s original vision.

All countries tend towards having a government.
Socialist governments need strong authority in order to prevent free
economic association. Having such power, they'll tend to exercise it.
Governments may claim to be "of the people", but they tend to take on
a separate life of their own.
We observe this in N Korea, the PRC, the USSR, & any socialist country.
Capitalist countries don't need to prevent voluntary communist associations.
So they (eg, Scandinavian countries, USA, Canuckistan) have more liberty.

Marx was a theoretician, unencumbered by actually implementing his
proposals. It's a tempting ideal for those who dream of such a utopia.
But any place where communism is voluntary, people will discover its
reality, & tend to opt out.....when government allows it.