It’s almost like the problem is authoritarianism, not the economic system
The Dangers of Socialism they warned us about...
Submitted 3 weeks ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to workreform@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/e6fa79aa-64de-49db-b068-e5f067629bd8.png
Comments
yenahmik@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
cecilkorik@piefed.ca 2 weeks ago
Extremism is also the problem, because it allows economic systems to be taken to extremes, which become unbalanced and that then unbalances other systems, like the political systems, which when given the right push by a particular aspiring authoritarian can easily end up landing on authoritarianism.
The middle ground is usually the safest place to be. Socialism and capitalism are economic tools, they both have their place, for certain purpose. Extremists would tell you one is strictly, absolutely, and universally better than the other and imply that thus we should only ever use one system for everything (usually without strictly, absolutely, or universally defining what “better” actually means, because it’s usually a pretty self-serving form of “better"). That is an extremist position that many capitalists take, and most of western society spent the last oh, hundred years or so believing to various degrees.
Socialized medicine is perfectly sensible, for example, and that’s a hill I’m perfectly willing to die on (but because I have access to socialized medicine I probably won’t have to die, and I won’t be bankrupted either, hooray :P)
Socialism is not perfect, but neither is capitalism, neither is democracy, neither is pretty much anything. Perfection is a myth. There is no perfect tool, not in a workshop and not in a civilization. Some are more powerful than others. Some are more dangerous. Often the most powerful ones are the most dangerous. That doesn’t mean they are bad, but it does mean we must respect them and use them with care and attention, and only when appropriate. We don’t have perfect tools, and we probably never will but we can have a large and growing collection of tools we can use to manage our lives, our society, and our civilization. The more tools we know how to use safely the better. Only using one tool for everything is a stupid way of doing things, and it can be dangerous in its own way.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Our economic system has spawned a new type of player, the Sociopathic Oligarch, who has embraced authoritarianism to protect their fortunes.
MisterFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Capitalism is authoritarian on at least the company scale (and more so at a society level, when you identify the coercive control that’s exerted because you can either toe the line or be homeless - as a oversimplification).
So, you are perhaps correct that the problem is with authoritianism, but it’s just that capitalism, as an economic system, is authoritian.
If you can’t vote on who manages your workplace, and have to comply else lose your job (and depending on the country, you house, your healthcare, etc) that’s authoritarian, just in a slightly different context.
arotrios@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It would be really nice if folks understood that authoritarianism will always ultimately oppress them, regardless of which ideology it serves.
And it would be doubly awesome if we could deconstruct those ideologies, take from each what works for the betterment of humanity, and build a way out of this ass backwards dystopia instead of shrieking “TankiE!” “FaCisT!!” “WoKE!” at each other.
But that might be a little too much to expect from a world full of hairless apes.
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Politics is far too much like team sports for a lot of people.
People on Lemmy act like criticizing the misdeeds of the USSR is an attack on all of socialism’s principles.
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
I rarely see criticism of actual misdeeds, mostly vague “USSR bad” and shit either made up or taken wildly out of context, both of which serve no purpose but to attack all of socialism’s principles.
This is the equivalent of starting every conversation involving Israel with “Do you condemn Hamas??!”; even if Hamas is imperfect, condemning them in the context of resisting Israel is condemning resistance to genocide.
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Add private property seizure to the list. They’re using eminent domain to take homes to build for AI infrastructure.
SippyCup@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The goal with the red scare then and the anti socialism crusade now is to make people scared, so they crave authoritarianism.
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
I’ve seen some numbers floating around that about 30% of people support authoritarianism. Some people literally cannor live with ambiguity and fear it. So when there is fear, societal, financial, etc, they flock to those who provide them a simple answer, even if incorrect.
In America’s case, Trump correctly identified those problems while the opposition didn’t address them. And those people can’t live with ambiguity, it sets alarm bells off in their head (might be why they can’t deal with lgbtq individuals even though it doesn’t affect them at all.)
Lost your job? An immigrant took it
Lost your healthcare? An immigrant or a trans individual took it.
Inflation, tax breaks for the wealthy? Corrupt elites in washington
lemmelemmy@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Tbh idk how people believed capitalism could be a good thing to begin with.
In nature, anything that grows indefinite is bound to corrupt. Even our cells. If there’s no controlled growth it turns into cancer.
Idk man. Idk.
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Even socialism would still use eminent domain to take property, but itd likely be for something a bit better than that. Probably a highway, train, or building that is more for the public good.
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Not saying it wouldn’t, but that’s one of the “fears of communism.” I just heard some MAGA hack using it on CNN or FOX I think trying to attack the DSA and fear monger.
But yes, a socialist government wouldn’t have profit as its core tenant, but people. So, ideally, eminent domain would be a last resort and plans would be made to affect minimal individuals while making sure compensation is more than fair.
In this case with the data center, I’m sure the power lines could be routed around the housing areas. But it would be more costly. Why would a private utility company spend more money when there’s profit to be made?
Good ol neoliberal capitalism and its inherent contradictions. Deliver freedom, but there is freedom of capital and freedom of peoples. And neoliberalism has chosen freedom of capital over freedom of people.
0x0@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Really, the thing that people fear is authoritarianism. And it can happen in any government so long as power is consolidated.
Power corrupts.
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
I like this take on it:
All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.
– Frank Herbert
saltesc@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This is non sequitur.
“Bad thing happens under system X, therefore system X is uniquely responsible/bad.”
No. We have an entire history to refer to where these things also happen under communism, as much as feudalism, fascism, theocratic states, monarchies, juntas, etc. It’s also ballsy to try make the claim, because if there is significant relation between systemic ideologies and these symptoms, rather than a more anthropological one, then communist states are the historical leader with Stalin, Mao’s China, East Germany, NK’s juche, etc. But only a moron would neglect the actual causes, generally concentrated and unaccountable power(s). Communism and capitalism are just optional toppings. It’s like saying “the pizza is burned because you chose anchovies and not pineapple”.
And that kind of this vs that leads into what’s really going on here, one of the internet’s favourite passtimes; tribalism. Pick a team, learn enough about the game to follow what’s going on, go to war with whatever rivals your new peers tell you too, scream nonsensical things from the armchair. So an identity-protective cognition ends up with post lacking comparison and history, for a conclusion their in-group is committed to. I e. such a post does nothing for outreach to non-communist thinkers, even though OP thinks they’re provoking thoughts.
valar@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Th OP is a counter argument to the non sequitur viewpoint. Right wingers love to say socialism is bad because it will bring these things. OP is saying, we have those anyway, so it’s not a good argument against socialism.
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The fun thing is that none of those things have ever been a symptom of communism/socialism. The authoritarian states that wish to maintain unitary control of the people implemented those things in spite of the egalitarian nature of communism/socialism. But they absolutely are symptoms of capitalism, where unitary control is part of the system.
Faithless@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
If you are honest it’s undeniable that half that list can be linked to every country ever attempting communism.
Problem is Americans don’t understand there is something in between their insane system and North Korea. Its called democratic socialism
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’m aware. But none of them have ever actually met the definition of communism. At minimum, all of them still had central unitary state powers. That is, by definition, not communism.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
For certain kinds of communism/socialism, authoritarianism does seem pretty much inevitable. It’s not inevitable for more distributed community-oriented forms. But for any socialist/communist government organized at the national level, authoritarianism seems inevitable to me.
In order to seize the means of production, you have to do just that - seize it. You have to send scores of armed men out with guns to physically take control over all the productive assets in a country. And those assets are then available for the state to use, for whatever reasons it wants. Sure, the people in power will promise to use those resources for the greater good, but who is going to stop them if they don’t?
If we’ve seen anything in the last 20 years in the US, it’s that power and wealth are interchangeable. Wealth is power. Power is wealth. It’s why I oppose the very existence of billionaires - no individual should have that much power. If that weren’t true, I wouldn’t care so much about them. I really don’t care if a billionaire builds an obnoxiously large yacht. I do care if they start throwing their money around and controlling national policy. And whenever a government seizes control of the entire economy, it now owns the entire wealth of a nation. And if you have all the assets, have complete authority to decide who works what job, have complete say on where people get to live? Well that government now has total power over everyone’s lives.
Any government that powerful immediately falls to authoritarianism. Why? Because there is one and only one locus of power in that country now. Ambitious people can’t start a business or seek power through some other level of government. All resources are controlled by the central state. If you want to have any influence at all over that society, you need to get in power of that central government. The government is all-powerful. The stakes are total. Power is completely centralized. You as a leader either control everything or nothing.
It’s rather impossible not to end up with authoritarianism when a form of government requires, as a first step, to gather all power and wealth under the control of a single authority.
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Right, the problem isn’t necessarily the communism it’s the transition point where the means of production are seized to what is meant to be the central government dissolving itself after distributing the seized property and wealth to the people. That last part has never happened and would take a truly perfect idealistic central party to ever do so. It hasn’t and will not happen. This is why every “communist” county has resulted in an authoritarian unitary state under a dictator.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Here we go again. This is what happens when people don’t understand the difference between an economic system and a system of government.
Capitalism and socialism are economic models. Democracy, authoritarianism, dictatorship, and communism are systems of government. They are not interchangeable, nor are they mutually exclusive.
You can have democratic capitalism, authoritarian capitalism, democratic socialism, and authoritarian socialism. History has provided examples of every combination.
Mass surveillance, censorship, political corruption, police abuse, and restrictions on protest are all functions of how a government exercises power. They are not inherent features of capitalism or socialism.
Posts like this don’t demonstrate some profound insight into economics. They demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of basic political science. The fact that this kind of meme gets shared uncritically is a good indication of just how widespread that ignorance has become online.
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
100%
The reason why socialism gets stereotyped as authoritarian is that most hyper-capitalist societies are very resistant to becoming much more socialist in short order, so authoritarian factions emerge to make (violent) revolution, which begets an authoritarian system of government when those factions finish the revolution and are in a perfect position to fill the power vacuum.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
The reason why socialism gets stereotyped as authoritarian is
propaganda.
Keep the government out of my Medicare!
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Capitalism and socialism are economic models. Democracy, authoritarianism, dictatorship, and communism are systems of government.
🙄 Communism isn’t an economic model?
mechoman444@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It is in fact not.
a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
It is a system government. Although the concept of communism is extremely complex. Ideally, it would be a classless society based on shared and equal equity.
Socialism is part of it of course, but one can exist without the other.
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
This is a pedantic comment; read “Marxist-Leninism” where you see “Communism” when a lot of people use the latter.
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
We have a blatant politically aligned trillionaire, capitalism has now become a power structure that will devour both, not by means of authority or force, just from the attrition of allowing a trillionaire to exist and by that very existence we will be consumed via interest alone. Everything is now resource control, and capitalism is the only lever of power because we’ve allowed one singular entity to have that level of capital influence and control.
Conceptually I agree, this is how these systems would be competently applied for stable political structures, but we’re not working with stable structures anymore and in practice that’s not how it’s been working. If we had politicians who actually understood political and economic systems and structures and gave the slightest shit about stability and longevity (this isn’t just America, this is a global statement) then these logics would apply, but nigh every politician is currently trying, feverishly, to hammer the square block through the round hole and they will die before they ever stop.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
This is a very typical style of response I get whenever I make statements concerning socialism and communism. The conversation immediately veers into a condemnation of capitalism without actually addressing the point that was being made.
The issue is that people constantly conflate different economic and political concepts. Criticizing problems within modern capitalism does not somehow prove that socialism or communism are the solution, nor does it address the historical record of governments that have implemented those systems. Additionally, the United States today is not a pure free-market capitalist system; it is a mixed economy with significant government involvement, and many would argue that increasing corporate influence has created elements of a corporatocracy. Critiquing that reality is a separate discussion from whether socialism or communism has historically produced the outcomes its proponents claim.
The Soviet Union under Stalin resulted in forced collectivization, political purges, labor camps, and millions of deaths. Mao’s China implemented policies like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which led to widespread famine, persecution, and the deaths of tens of millions. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge attempted to create an agrarian communist society and carried out a genocide against its own population. North Korea developed into one of the most authoritarian states in modern history under a communist government. Venezuela’s economic collapse occurred under a government that described itself as socialist, though the causes and degree of responsibility are debated. Cuba’s communist government has maintained political repression and restricted political freedoms for decades.
None of this means capitalism is perfect or immune from corruption, inequality, or abuses of power. Every system requires competent institutions, accountability, and safeguards against the concentration of power. But pointing out flaws in capitalism does not erase the historical outcomes of socialist and communist governments.
The original point remains: healthcare and other public services are not inherently socialist. A government providing a service does not automatically change the underlying economic system. Socialism and capitalism primarily refer to ownership and control of economic resources, not simply whether a government funds or provides certain programs.
A capitalist democracy can have universal healthcare. A socialist state can be authoritarian. These are separate concepts, and confusing them prevents any meaningful discussion about economics or political systems.
Wakmrow@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Democratic capitalism lmao.
Anything can be true when you make shit up
mechoman444@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
O man.
You realize the most successful countries on Earth are Democratic capitalists right?
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
MFW the entire US and most of the western world is imaginary.
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Yeah, because its all projection from capitalist about what they would do with power.
quarkquasar@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Makes sense when you think about it, wouldn’t you do the same if you were intending on ruling over a group of people like despots?
BillyClark@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
I’ve seen several times where somebody posts a picture saying “Look what socialism causes,” and the picture is like a tent city in modern America that was created under capitalism.
Manticore@lemmy.nz 2 weeks ago
From what I understand, the narrative is that these things are inevitable. Natural emergent states of the world.
So it’s not that these things are avoidable/preventable, so much as wouldn’t you rather the GOOD guys be in charge of the fiefdoms?
Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Things are inevitable if you don’t change policy and culture.
They are just betting everyone is so overwhelmed they can’t see what is really happening. So far it is working.
matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Sure! Looking forward to finally see one of these good guys!
Anyone ever saw one??
MonkeyMagic1968@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Not enough drugs to facilitate such a strong hallucination.
Zacryon@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
I think the trick is that evil capitalism sells it to you as something you’d actually want. Or a lot of people want. Meanwhile evil communism kinda forces it onto people more directly.
Store all of your private data on some storage devices sitting anywhere in the world and let people manage it you do not know and can not be sure they’re not accessing it?
That’s the convenience of the cloud!Let some weirdos obsess over your social life, connections, and what you ate for breakfast to sell that data and show you stuff that manipulates you to do their bidding?
That’s the advantage of staying in touch with friends and family over social networks!Carry a device with you that tracks your whereabouts and monitors each and every interaction you have with it? That’s smartphones for you. But hey, at least you can find your way to the next McDonalds thanks to the navigation and map apps.
And this was “just” the technological aspect of things.
Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The technological aspect is perhaps the most important aspect though. It is what has allowed the wealthy far more money and power than ever thought imaginable.
craftrabbit@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Hm maybe this tells us that authoritarian systems can emerge no maze the economic model?
danc4498@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Peak capitalism.
cavitationfetishist01@quokk.au 3 weeks ago
But we can’t do socialism. The novels would get way longer, and we’re already suffering a crisis of attention spans and literacy.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
so no one understands socialism.
Radical_Socialist_t00t@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Scientific Socialism people, look it up its the only way forward
c999@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Ours is not to reason why Theirs is just to steal and lie
- Geezer Butler
Digit@lemmy.wtf 2 weeks ago
Reminds of
The promise of socialism, much easier, more robustly, if doing freedom first.
Though of course, push too hard to the sides, and you can tip over a slippery slope, on the right, it’s the mechanism of wealth and power consolidation, with the rich able to accumulate wealth (and therefor power) faster, since “it takes money to make money”, and on the left it’s more a mere ideological slip up, to a totalitarianising fervency.
Big baron terrorises with scare stories of big brother. Big brother terrorises with scare stories of big baron. Both terrorising everybody towards totalitarianism and tyranny. We do better without these bigs that have us all jump at once. Big bank, big bully, big bot, big blight it matters not. Freedom first, where we can have meaningful discussion about our economic balance and how to organise things.
Digit@lemmy.wtf 2 weeks ago
Wow. 3 downvotes. … I wonder why. Authoritarians passing by, not like being called out?
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
I don’t think it’s capitalism anymore, it’s a mess. It’s an oligarchy going towards monopolies that will own the government. Skynet from terminator 2 is where I’m eventually seeing this go
Faithless@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Ah great. One extremist complaining about an other extremist.
Authoritarianism is a consequence of extremisme which is a consequence of stupidity… left or right wing extremism are both bad and evil, but saying the whole American idiocracy disaster is caused by capitalism is dishonest
BabyVi@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Capitalist extremism gets a free pass, for… reasons…
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
In the US we’re not quite USSR/CCP-levels of these things yet (which are the countries anti-socialist people think of when they demonize socialism) (therefore the post is hyperbole/propaganda), but we’ve been making big leaps lately so I think this meme will be true soon. I think the much more coherent, accurate, and therefore effective facet of this is pointing out that it’s authoritarianism that does this, not socialism. We’ve had (very limited) socialism in the US for many years, and many prosperous and well-regarded-in-supposed-anti-socialist-people’s-eyes countries have more socialism than the US has.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
In the US we’re not quite USSR/CCP-levels
We never are. The Foreigners are always worse.
I think this meme will be true soon.
I’ve been reading this since the Reagan Administration. It’s also Big Government. It’s always Authoritarianism. The remedy is always some flavor of Deregulation or States Rights or (Capitalist) Anarchism or A Return to The Constitutional Principles.
it’s authoritarianism that does this
Real Literal Reaganism
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
We never are. The Foreigners are always worse.
??? No.
I’ve been reading this since the Reagan Administration. It’s also Big Government. It’s always Authoritarianism. The remedy is always some flavor of Deregulation or States Rights or (Capitalist) Anarchism or A Return to The Constitutional Principles.
I can’t tell if you’re asserting we’re past this point or we’ll never get to this point.
Real Literal Reaganism
I can’t tell if you’re asserting I’m siding with Reagan or the post is siding with Reagan, but both are hilariously off-base.
jobbies@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I dont think those things are acceptable regardless of the doctrine your country follows.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
It’s also more of a dictatorship vs functioning democracy distinction than a capitalism vs socialism distinction
The soviet union had most of the things on the list, but that’s because it was a dictatorship, it was never run by the proletariat, it still had an elite and that elite was particularly nasty.
From what I gather, Cuba, while not perfect, is in a much better place in terms of human rights, and has to feed its people despite sanctions. And we have several nations still practicing capitalism that aren’t dictatorships.
Of course the US conservatives have done a lot to make people conflate socialism with authoritarianism and lukewarm liberals with socialists.
jobbies@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Most of them are ‘social democracies’ that are a mix of socialism and capitalism. It doesnt always have to be left vs right.
rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Cuba is still pretty crap I’m afraid. Like with the USSR, you’re not exactly fairly electing your foreman or your governor. Emma Goldman would call it state-capitalist.
The reason the old Marxist parties called themselves social-democrats, before they sold themselves out so bad that the name changed meaning, was because it was conceived that socialism would involve democracy in every facet of social life rather than just electing a parliament.
The Leninists and reformists have failed to bring about this dream, but it is a fair dream to strive towards. Class society and the state (including alleged democracies) restrain people’s control over their own lives and turn us into mere order-takers content with scraps. The struggle for more than mere scraps and the struggle for self-management and autonomy are in truth the same struggle, which is the struggle for that dream.
MisterFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The point is that people will pretend that socialism = authoritarianism, just because there were a bunch of countries claiming to be socialist in history, despite being incredibly undemocratic.
Socialism is the workers controlling society. So by definition (or at least my interpretation), none of those countries were/are socialist anyway.
jobbies@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Americans do - they use the terms communism/socialism interchangeably and can’t seem to explain why they don’t like either. Those of us who’ve grown up with political variety know what socialism is.
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I don’t think socialism and democracy have anything to do with each other (other than that if you give people democracy they will generally vote for socialism depending on how empathetic the group is).
You can have socialism with zero democracy and you can have socialism with tons of democracy.
DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Not if you read the closeted fascist warning signs on democracy.
jobbies@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Sorry, what? That made no sense.