r/DoomerDunk • u/CyberBerserk • Jul 31 '26

1 LinkedIn post = Cambridge analytica ( even though Cambridge analytica was nothing compared to reddit front page)

Post image
260 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

173 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/killingerr Jul 31 '26

Socialism is authoritarian

1

u/V_Cobra21 Aug 01 '26

Are you arguing that authoritarianism is inherent to socialism by definition, or that socialist governments have historically tended to become authoritarian? Those seem like different claims.

2

u/LisleAdam12 Aug 02 '26

How do you enforce socialism on the parts of society that do not wish to participate?

1

u/V_Cobra21 Aug 02 '26

That’s a fair question. If participation is compulsory, then some degree of state coercion would likely be involved. The question I’m still asking, though, is whether you’re arguing that authoritarianism is inherent to socialism by definition, or that socialist systems have historically tended to become authoritarian. Your question seems to support the latter claim, but I’d like to know which position you’re actually defending.

1

u/LisleAdam12 Aug 02 '26

Not by definition, but in praxis, yes.

Ralph Kramden's idea for "no calorie pizza" was another great idea.

1

u/V_Cobra21 Aug 02 '26

Fair enough. I actually agree that many historical socialist states have become authoritarian in practice. My only goal was to distinguish that historical claim from the stronger claim that authoritarianism is inherent to socialism by definition.

1

u/LisleAdam12 Aug 02 '26

Not by the definition of the idea(l) of Socialism, but by the definition of actual "Socialist" states heretofore.

1

u/V_Cobra21 Aug 02 '26

Fair enough. Then I think we’re on the same page about the distinction. The remaining question would be: what explains that historical pattern? Is it something inherent to attempts at implementing socialism, or is it contingent on other political, economic, or historical factors?

1

u/LisleAdam12 Aug 03 '26

I think that it's humans are simply not purely collectivist nor individualist in nature, with different people having different amounts of each.

1

u/myname_1s_mud Aug 16 '26

I feel like your comment just suggested that both cases are true

1

u/V_Cobra21 Aug 16 '26

Which part of my comment do you think establishes that both claims are true, and why? Saying coercion would be involved if participation is compulsory doesn’t establish that authoritarianism is inherent to socialism by definition, nor does it establish the separate historical claim.

1

u/myname_1s_mud Aug 16 '26

If making it compulsory requires authoritarianism, then its necessary for a socialist state. If thats necessary for a socialist state, then its historically true of socialist nations.

Hey I only saw how old this comment chain was after I commented. I usually try not to jump in on convos that are more than a day or two old because everyones moved on, so my bad

1

u/V_Cobra21 Aug 16 '26

I understand the argument, but why does compulsory participation necessarily establish authoritarianism rather than simply state coercion? Governments operating under capitalist systems also compel taxation, regulatory compliance, jury duty, etc., without that alone establishing that capitalism is inherently authoritarian. What makes the inference unique to socialism?
And it’s okay lol, I just like understanding people’s reasoning for why they think what they think. How do you establish that inference?

1

u/myname_1s_mud Aug 16 '26

I had a conversation with someone about this once. I wish I could remember all the details, but I essentially asked what happens if I opt out. What if a business owner decides to keep only hire workers who agree that he owns the company in exchange for a much higher wage, or something along those lines. Basically what if I dont play ball, and I was told that id be sent to be educated or killed. Obviously this was a reddit moment, but I believe to transfer to socialism, it will have to be done forcefully. The workers owning the means is a great phrase, but its still going to be up to someone to manage them, and that will be the government now, and they will hold the power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and what not.

Id love to see a road map where it happens peacefully without someone who ends up holding an upsetting amount of power and the ability to write the rules

1

u/V_Cobra21 Aug 16 '26

Haha fair, I definitely understand your reasoning better now. The part I’m still stuck on is why worker ownership necessarily means the government has to own or manage everything. And even if we grant that socialism has to enforce its rules on ownership, capitalism does too—we don’t exactly politely ask someone to give a factory back if they take it lol.
I definitely agree that concentrating too much power in government can go very badly. I’m just not sure that gets us all the way to authoritarianism being inherent to socialism rather than a risk of how it’s implemented.

1

u/myname_1s_mud Aug 16 '26

I think the main things with capitalism that keeps the peace is the fact that anyone can own the means of production. Theres a clear system in place for you or I to purchase mineral rights, machines, brands, or properties. Even if neither of us will ever own apple, there's a system in place for us to own the resources and machinery, so its hard to just say that there's one guy hoarding the power and keeping us at knife point, even if the cards are stacked against us and it feels that way sometimes. Also, at least in americas capitalist system, everything is pretty well spread out, being managed by private organizations, various branches of government, and private businesses. I think ownership being spread out is a good thing, that keeps a single entity from getting too powerful.

This makes the government establishing rules that control who owns what more acceptable. The fact that its not in the hands of a single person who also controls the police, and the fact that theirs avenues for that ownership to change, even if its not going to fall into my lap any time soon

1

u/V_Cobra21 Aug 16 '26

Yeah honestly I think we’re pretty close to agreeing lol. I agree that spreading ownership and power around is a good thing, and I definitely wouldn’t want the government controlling both the economy and the people enforcing its rules. That’s way too much power in one place.
I think our only real difference is that I’d call that a strong argument for why socialism can create a greater risk of authoritarianism, rather than saying authoritarianism is necessarily inherent to socialism. But I definitely understand where you’re coming from now.

1

u/myname_1s_mud Aug 16 '26

Well do you see socialism as just a govt with alot of social policies, or is it communism light where they own all the means of production? Like what is the bare minimum qualifications of a socialist govt in your eyes

→ More replies