The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Socialism is not authoritarianin Economy

cheesycheese

while many believe that socialism is synonymous with communism it is not

MayCaesar

Well, let us see...

- Socialism rejects the concept of individual property and puts the wealth distribution in the hands of the society.
- Socialism does not respect the principle of consent and interferes whenever two individuals want to sign a financial contract.
- Socialism heavily regulates the economy, preventing people from freely participating on the free market. In fact, it destroys the free market as such.
- Every time socialism has been tried in practice, it led to heavy repressions, totalitarianism and worship of the Great Leader.

Hmm... Is socialism authoritarian? This is truly a difficult question. Authoritarian or liberal? Dilemma.

Socialism is authoritarian (in its softest form), and communism is totalitarian. Communism is simply socialism taken to its logical end.

cheesycheese

socialism

/ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/

noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

   synonyms:

   leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More

   • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.

     synonyms:

     leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More

   • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

authoritarian

/ɔːˌθɒrɪˈtɛːrɪən/

adjective

1. 1. 

   favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

   "the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime"

   synonyms:

   autocratic, dictatorial, totalitarian, despotic, tyrannical, autarchic, draconian, absolute, arbitrary, oppressive, repressive, illiberal, undemocratic, anti-democratic; More

noun

1. 1. 

   an authoritarian person.

   synonyms:

   autocrat, despot, dictator, tyrant, absolutist; More

cheesycheese

Seeing as these are different they are not synonomys

cheesycheese

You mean communism when you say this

CYDdharta

cheesycheese said:

Seeing as these are different they are not synonomys

They aren't mutually exclusive either which makes your point rather pointless.

Polaris95

@MayCaesar

Socialism does not reject the idea of private property, that's communism. Cuba was communist, not socialist. Almost everything you said applies to communism, but not to socialism. In principle communism is the continuation of socialism, but they are still different in many aspects.

piloteer

"@Polaris95

Try as you might, you can't prove to me there's a substantial difference between communism and socialism. If you look up the word "collectivism", you will find socialism and communism in that same category. If you look up "individualism" you will find neither socialism or communism in that category! Both of them were made into political science by the same person!

cheesycheese

Karl marx created marxism not communism and i agree that its still terrible but not as bad as communism

I have also been using welfare socialism which you may define as capitalism however i define it as socialist

welfare state. An economic system that combines features of capitalism and socialism by retaining private ownership while the government enacts broad programs of social welfare, such as pensions and public housing.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/welfare-state

cheesycheese

CYDdharta said:

cheesycheese said:

Seeing as these are different they are not synonomys

They aren't mutually exclusive either which makes your point rather pointless.

You’re using a form of the argument because you can’t disprove it it must be true my point isn’t that socialism can’t be authoritarian my point is that socialism when in moderation can be effective

MayCaesar

@cheesycheese ;

Not a single more or less reputable economical theory supports the notion that "socialism when in moderation can be effective". Not does any real data we possess from across multiple millennia. Keynesian model, one most economists consider borderline pseudo-science, is the one socialism advocates tend to refer to when they try to sound educated in the field - but even that model contradicts socialism on many levels.

Not to mention that "socialism in moderation" is as much of an oxymoron as "fascism in moderation", or "Sharia law in moderation". Socialism itself sits very far away from any reasonable degree of moderation in economics.

You can take a socialist model, remove all socialist elements from it and gain a functional system, indeed. Only that system would not be socialism any more.

cheesycheese

like it or not the form of socialism i'm talking about includes germany and the nordic countries

MayCaesar

@cheesycheese ;

Any German/Nordic professor in economics would say that you failed your course and have to take it again, were you to make a claim that any of those countries is socialistic.

Just because you personally choose to call those countries' economical systems "socialism", does not make it so.

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” - Lars Løkke Rasmussen, prime minister of Denmark.

Ampersand

Socialism is not inherently authoritarian. It refers to any system where the means of production are collectively owned and income is accorded based on how hard you work.

It can manifest in authoritarian forms - Stalinism being an obvious example. What people don't tend to take into account is that this is just like Capitalism it can also manifest in authoritarianist forms. Moreover the societies which historically tended to break from their prexisting socioeconomic status to socialism were those that were already third world shitholes with no history of democracy, human rights, etc e.g. Russia was an authoritarian shithole before, during and after the USSR. Horrendous poverty, poor economy, oppression etc may be spurs for people to fight for equality, but they're also a poor basis for building a country and the socialism working poorly in situation where every economic policy works poorly does not mean socialism works poorly in a modern democratically entrenched country,.

cheesycheese

MayCaesar said:

@cheesycheese ;

Any German/Nordic professor in economics would say that you failed your course and have to take it again, were you to make a claim that any of those countries is socialistic.

Just because you personally choose to call those countries' economical systems "socialism", does not make it so.

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” - Lars Løkke Rasmussen, prime minister of Denmark.

you just contradicted yourself you said that just because i say so doesn't mean it's true then you used the word of the danish prime minister to say that it isn't socialist trying to convince me that i'm wrong about socialism not being authoritarian because you a person who actively fights socialism is claiming that democratic socialism doesn't exist it seems like an emotional reason rather than a logical one

George_Horse

While Socialism does not promote authoritarian government, it has resulted in forms of authoritarian governments. 

cheesycheese

@George_Horse however you treat it as if it always does

MayCaesar

@cheesycheese

I brought that quote to support my point with reasoning, not as a foundation of the point. Socialism is socialism: no matter who calls it what, there is a proper definition, and none of the Western democracies satisfy that definition.

You constantly point at capitalist countries to support the claim that socialism works, while actual instances of socialist governments you dismiss. Your position is about as illogical as it can get. 

The minimal amount of education in economics would decrease the number of socialists by 99% or so, I feel. Simple explanation of the supply/demand balance and the effects of the imposed governmental restrictions on it would already demolish the whole Sanders' voter base, for example. Alas, economics is not taught at school nearly as well as, say, physics/math, so many people know the mathematical 2+2=4, but are not aware of the economical 2+2=4.

George_Horse

cheesycheese said:

@George_Horse however you treat it as if it always does

I do not treat it as if I think it happens everytime a socialist country has risen, I simply said it has resulted in forms of authoritarian government. If I am incorrect, please show me an example of a socialist country where political freedoms were NOT limited.

Ampersand

George_Horse said:

cheesycheese said:

@George_Horse however you treat it as if it always does

I do not treat it as if I think it happens everytime a socialist country has risen, I simply said it has resulted in forms of authoritarian government. If I am incorrect, please show me an example of a socialist country where political freedoms were NOT limited.

Faulty logic.

Flying a kite will result in your death within 130 years of flying a kite. Want to prove me wrong? Show me someone who flew a kite more than 130 years ago and is still alive.

The above logic is not correct because it makes the assumption there can be no mutual connection between the two factors besides a direct causal link. Same applies with socialism. Did the countries have poor political freedoms because they were socialist or were both socialism and a lack of political freedom caused by a common factor e.g.: being backwards developing nations with no history of democracy, political freedoms and full of oppression? A common factor which wouldn't apply in a mnodern democracy choosing to implement democracy.

Also political freedoms are limited in literally every country on earth do that's not a relevant benchmark and you can point to easy examples of socialist countries being better than the capitalist equivalents in terms of political rights, e.g. the democratically elected Allende being better than Pinochet who seized power in a CIA backed coup and then took to torturing his own populace and having people gunned down en masse in sports stadiums.

cheesycheese

MayCaesar said:

@cheesycheese

I brought that quote to support my point with reasoning, not as a foundation of the point. Socialism is socialism: no matter who calls it what, there is a proper definition, and none of the Western democracies satisfy that definition.

You constantly point at capitalist countries to support the claim that socialism works, while actual instances of socialist governments you dismiss. Your position is about as illogical as it can get. 

The minimal amount of education in economics would decrease the number of socialists by 99% or so, I feel. Simple explanation of the supply/demand balance and the effects of the imposed governmental restrictions on it would already demolish the whole Sanders' voter base, for example. Alas, economics is not taught at school nearly as well as, say, physics/math, so many people know the mathematical 2+2=4, but are not aware of the economical 2+2=4.

cheesycheese said:

like it or not the form of socialism i'm talking about includes germany and the nordic countries

see i do point to socialist country a socialist countries values is taking care of the poor

the video ranks germany as socialist as well as denmark