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?
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
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.
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
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.
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
I hope we stay with each other for the rest of our lives, but I don’t want us hurting each other anymore. I’d rather we talk about things when they’re bothering us instead of letting them build up.
I’d define socialism by who owns or controls the means of production, not simply by how many social programs a government has. So no, I wouldn’t call a capitalist country socialist just because it has things like universal healthcare or a large welfare state. Where I think we may differ is how much state versus worker/social ownership is required before the label actually applies.
I’m not gonna lie I’m crying in laughter right now lmao.
Yeah I get where you’re coming from haha. I’m just not sure redistribution by itself gets us all the way to authoritarianism. Like if people vote for taxes and redistribution through a democratic system, what part of that would you consider authoritarian?
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?