this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
993 points (100.0% liked)

196

16453 readers
2296 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Conservatives are the people outside of the last frame encouraging the cops to step more on the neck region.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 22 points 3 months ago (13 children)

Under socialism, the tower belongs to The People, and is used by their representatives in the Party.

[–] jorp@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (10 children)

Socialism doesn't dictate a government structure, there's authoritarian socialism and there's anarchist socialism and there's socialism in-between.

What's ironic about your point is that you're advocating for a literally authoritarian economic system where the owning class dictates what laborers do. You spend most of your waking hours working for a dictator.

Socialism is about making the economy worker owned and giving the workers control over what gets produced and how. That could be via worker cooperatives, it can be via anarchism, it can be via an authoritarian state that (claims to) represent the worker.

[–] will_steal_your_username@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Socialism doesn’t dictate a government structure

I disagree! Socialism by definition requires the people to own their own homes and the places where they work, which is difficult in a government not run by the people. Socialism must be democratic, anything else is just red fascism.

it can be via an authoritarian state that (claims to) represent the worker.

I may have been hasty, seems you agree! But I would like to stress that any government which claims to be socialist but makes unions illegal and enforces capitalism and private property shouldn't really get to call itself socialist or communist. They're just state capitalist oligarchies.

[–] jorp@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'll give you that. I am leaving room in my definition for anarcho-communism and anarcho-socialism (or even anarcho-syndicalism and other left-anarchist systems) and those don't require a state.

Democracy is a decent enough way to run a state, but anarchists would critique democracy (from the left) by pointing out that it can violently compel people based on the will of the majority, and so consensus building, federation, and mutual aid can replace a democratic state while accomplishing socialism.

Ah, I see! I was only disagreeing with the inclusion of authoritarian socialism, which in my mind is an oxymoron.

Democracy can take many shapes and I would argue anarchy must always be democratic as well, even if it is way more democratic than current systems.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)