Why are socialist and communist countries usually considered more authoritarian than capitalist countries?
Why are socialist and communist countries usually considered more authoritarian than capitalist countries?
You're viewing a single thread.
Because communism doesn't work for large, heterogenous groups, so increasing amounts of coercion are used to keep the system running.
And new forms of government such as socialism are generally more succeptible to corruption as people find the new loopholes; as a government gets more corrupt, those who corrupted it seek to consolidate their power.
I think socialism can be made workable, as we examine and correct the problems with previous attempts. I don't think communism works well for human societies, as it requires people to act better than we know they do.
And new forms of government such as socialism are generally more succeptible to corruption as people find the new loopholes; as a government gets more corrupt, those who corrupted it seek to consolidate their power.
This is capitalism tho.
This is every system, but new systems have new avenues for corruption and usually no established defense against it.
The USA has by far the largest prison population in absolute terms and per capita. You have no idea what you are saying.
Permanently Deleted
Liberalism is founded on facts and logic, therefore liberals have an inalienable right to expound on unfounded ideas.
NO INVESTIGATION, NO RIGHT TO SPEAK
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
It won't do!
It won't do!
You must investigate!
You must not talk nonsense!
It's always striking to see "liberal" used as an epithet. It's like trying to insult someone by calling them "well-read".
Ironically, a comparison only someone who's never cracked a history book could think is apt.
In other words a liberal
I really appreciate you hand sending this extremely funny comment straight to my inbox, thanks. Normally I'd have to scroll through some straight up boring shit to find a nugget like this.
Liberal means someone who's either misinformed about their own interests, or someone who willingly aligns with capitalist interests.
Liberal isn't some badge of honor. It's the default ideology in every western nation.
Liberal isn't some badge of honor. It's the default ideology in every western nation.
Exactly. Being a liberal requires zero reading or effort on any westoids part. Its the recieved ideology
Do you call women femoids too?
Maybe I was too generous, and the reason attempts at communism and socialism tend to go authoritarian is because some holding those ideologies have unnecessary decided to align themselves against liberalism.
Yeah there's no reconciliation between communist and liberal ideology. They propose fundamentally different frameworks for how the world operates. Liberals place emphasis on individual actions, intention, sentiment, or how changing people's minds is the engine of history.
Communists with a material outlook propose the primacy of material distribution and class. Liberals don't believe class exists, or that it doesn't operate as a coherent political interest group.
Hey, thanks for your clear and cogent comment. It helped me understand why the antipathy exists and how my own biases were clouding my perspective. You clearly understand liberalism much better than I understand communism, but now at least I understand it a little better. Props.
Oh, thanks for replying in good faith. A lot of people gave you hostility because you did say something that seems a little misinformed. And people get ruffled by seeing that kinda thing so often. But good on you for taking the time to read stuff.
I'd really recommend reading this: The Principles of Communism by Engels.
It's very clearly written, short, and explains what exactly communist ideology is and who it represents.
In very brief: Communists believe there are two classes, workers and business owners. This is always a hostile relationship that can't be mended, since the two want different things. So we propose the working class should abolish the business owning class.
Liberals do not believe this relationship is hostile, or they don't believe it exists. Or they believe it can be mended through the use of state intervention. That's one of the primary differences here.
Great recommendation! Principles of Communism by Engels is the best, most concise, and direct introductory theory.
If liberals are about intentions & sentiments then why do they keep telling me they’re about facts & logic?
Because communism doesn't work for large, heterogenous groups
I hear a lot of variations of this "socialism can't work for a large heterogenous group" and its such a dumb lib brainworm. Its incredibly rascist for one (obviously too if you think about it for more than 1 second) and the population size argument is just nonsensical. The largest country in the world is communist and has a heterogenous population. The USSR had a large heterogenous population and that fact had nothing to do with the eventual dissolution, but did have much to do with its success
Leaving aside nonsensically calling the CCP socialist or the USSR a success, I'm curious about your racism argument.
I don't see how acknowledging that racism exists and is a barrier to class unity is racist. I tend to think acknowledging that racism exists is the first step towards fighting racism. What's your reasoning here?
I'll note as well that that criticism was towards communism, not socialism which I think can work just fine for both large groups and diverse ones.
You don't know enough about what you're talking about to be worth arguing with. I was just pointing out the stupid rascist lib talking point cause it comes up all the time for anyone who's actually interested in learning about things you have failed to investigate but want to run your mouth about
Edit: also considering it nonsensical to consider the PRC to be a socialist nation is also pretty rascist
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have included arguments in my request for clarification, that was extremely poor form and you were right to have been dismissive.
But if I have some previously unexamined belief that's rooted in racism, I do earnestly want to correct it. If you've got something to teach me that can help, I want to hear it and will thank you for telling me.
if I have some previously unexamined belief that's rooted in racism, I do earnestly want to correct it.
I already pointed them out and you doubled down, but I'll try to give a quick explanation.
The PRC is socialist and governed by a communist party. They have a series of 5 year plans that culminate in reaching full socialism by 2050.
The reason many westerners say they're "communist in name only" is partially because of the reforms under Deng that allowed for capital development in order to build the productive forces that could be utilized to build functioning socislism under the nose of US imperial hegemony. Those reforms were controversial amoung communists at the time, but the government under Xi is making good on the intention of those reforms right now, and history has proven them to have been effective. The other part of the reason is Western chauvanism/rascism. "Non-whites cant do socialism right - they're authoritarians." This arguement is leveled at every actually existing socialist project by Western "leftists."
So it isn't "nonsensical" to consider the PRC to be what it considers itself to be, and has demonstrated itself to be. You just have to actually be informed about it
The original point about "can't do socialism because of large, heterogenous population." Besides being obvioulsy wrong because there's examples of actually existing socialism that had or have large, heterogenous populations, i always point out that the statement is rascist. I do this because most people repeating it, haven't even thought about how its rascist.
Its a brainworm people in the US use to explain why they can't have the kind of social democracy they have in Scandinavian countries - at least that's the context I've always heard it used. This is a "nonsensical" trueism. First, the Scandinavian countries they're refering to are 1) not socialist to begin with, they're social democracies. 2) they aren't homogeneous, they also have ethnic minorities and have rascism.
That statement is not a meaningful acknowledgement of rascism, its an acquiescence to it. Its an appeal to rascism as an arguement why something just can't happen in the US. It also ignores the actual reasons impeding social democracy, let alone socislism which is the entrenched position of capitalist hegemony, the power and depth of its propaganda apparatus, and the relatively privileged position of US workers vs those in the global south due to imperialist exploitation and extraction.
Thanks for taking the time to write all this out for me, especially the stuff about China's capital projects. I will certainly be less blithe about trotting out the party line on that topic.
No problem, you're welcome. I actually misread your last post and thought you were being sarcastic but thought I'd give that info anyway lol, sorry about misreading.
Yeah until i started learning about socialism and learning about actually existing socialism i had no clue about the nuances of China's development either. There was a lot of skepticism about Deng's reforms at the time and to the present, but the actions of the Party under Xi have begun the process of reigning the capitalist expansion in and redirecting those productive forces toward the goal of full socialism by 2050.
There's an important distinction that AES states recognize - that they're socialist projects even if they aren't currently in a state of full socialism. Socialism is diffucult to create. Marx theorized that revolutions would take place where fully developed capitalism already existed for the workers to then take control over, and use thise productive forces to build socialism. But the Revolutions in Russia and China (and the subsequent revolutions in the global south) required some reevalution. Generally speaking, the revolutionary potential was weak in the highly developed capitialist countries and was strongest in the areas ravaged by Western imperialism. But following the successful revolutions measures were required to industrialize and build the forces and conditions necessay to create socialism. Western left anti-communists chauvinisticly tend to point to full socialism not existing already in AES as them "not doing it right" despite the fact that they are actually creating socialism, while the Western left has achieved basically nothing.
complains about capitalism
Is this communism?
I'd argue that no system truly works for larger groups.
more susceptible to corruption
I couldn't disagree more. Any system is very susceptible to corruption. It's all about accountability and transparency, which those in power will never make themselves do, because it is actively harming them by stripping them of opportunities to amass more power and influence.
And that is true in any system. Communist states became totalitarian dictatorships, while Capitalist nations also grow more corrupt because of greed and power lust, to the point where you see things like "the revolving door" in the USA, or the Tory party donors essentially paying for peerages in the UK. And of course, there's also lobbying.
Corruption is everywhere and the common man gets screwed over regardless of the system or people in charge, because the good people are always too good to compete, fight, and play dirty against these politicians so the winners are always the evil ones.
That's not only an incredibly nihilistic way of seeing the world, but also it is exactly what the bourgeoise dictatorships want you to see: "everything is terrible but the dreaded others are worse, now shut up and work for my 10th yacht"
That's not what I said. I said everywhere is terrible.
And to be honest, yes, other places have it worse. I used to live in arguably the worst nation in Eastern Europe and I like in the UK now. I sure as hell know which one gibes me more life opportunities, higher quality and diversity of jobs, better education and higher quality of life.
And that's without even considering the places that are at war.
So yes, people in other places have it much much worse.
Now in terms of nihilism, I actually see myself as more of an absurdist, as ultimately I'll carry on living in this meaningless universe in spite of its lack of meaning and I will achieve a level of success and satisfaction with my own achievements, (hell, I kinda already have) in spite of the aforementioned
bastardspoliticians.
Oh I completely agree.
Established systems, at least ones that last, tend to have checks on corruption or on consolidating power. These are not always effective, obviously, and corruption is always a danger. My critique was specifically how newer systems have new and unforseen avenues do these antisocial activities.