Which is why socialism trends to authoritarianism in practice.
Freedom requires keeping the responsibility, duties, and outcomes clustered together as tightly as possible. If I break it, it affects me.
Freedom requires keeping the responsibility, duties, and outcomes clustered together as tightly as possible. If I break it, it affects me.
The conservative preference to avoid one undeserving person receiving benefits even if it risks the liberty and security of many deserving people is what pushes towards authoritarian implementations of benefits policies.
You see the same in the US - it’s states like Florida that insist on drug testing for benefits recipients. The issue is not the benefits program - it’s that the benefits program is being administered by a conservative government who fundamentally believe that benefits should only go to those who ‘deserve’ them.
The authoritarianism problem is not ‘socialist programs’ - it’s what happens when conservative perspectives on how socialist programs should be administered gain sway. In Denmark, even a broadly left coalition government contains more conservative members, and has to appease conservative voters to maintain power.
Authoritarianism is not inherently socialist or conservative, it can infect either end of the political spectrum.
Which let's also clarify what we're calling "socialism" here. In this case we using it to describe having the government provide a social safety net. All too often "socialism" gets applied as a blanket term for "any government provided service" which obfuscates the actual issues rather than clarifying anything. It just makes the whole conversation devolve into a pointless ideological battle.
Not really.
Or, rather, that claim is being used as justification for overreach and power grabs from the same authoritarians who claim to be against fascism.
In principal, no, non-fascist authoritarianisms can exist. In modern practice, they are comparatively rare. Leninism in the narrow sense was internationalist rather than nationalist, but most of its later derivatives (starting, in the USSR with “socialism in one country”) have shaded progressively more toward nationalism. Superficially “left” authoritarianisms (again, largely, Leninism and its derivatives) may have a rhetorical bent toward egalitarianism that contrasts with fascisms elitist/heirarchicalism, but even in old-school Leninism its distinction from Marxism is its adoption of vanguardism which naturally tends toward hierarchy, and that’s even more intense in its subsequent derivatives, both institutionalized with state power and, in many case, in revolutionary movements; the necessity of armed power to maintain authoritarian systems makes institutionalized authoritarianism naturally tend toward militarism even when as movements they might present as anti-militaristic. All of the modern authoritarian movements are corporatist, whether by bringing “outside” groups formally into regime decision-making, or abolishing them and replacing them with formal state institutions, or by assuring that “outside” interests are run by people connected to the regime and informally coordinating power, even if there aren’t part of formal decisionmaking.
For Nazis the oligarchy gets its power from bigger businesses (and still, the army and police, like all authoritarians). This is a very managerial system that promotes internal competition (Chapoutot wrote a book extremely interesting about it, especially when you lived through poorly implemented agile/scrum). It's basically the cousin of Fascim, one of their parents being Bonapartism.
I suppose communism/socialism/stalinism (depending on your definition) the oligarchy gets its power from the bureaucracy once they capture it from the proletariat. Again, a cousin of the two previous system, with the same parent (according to Trotsky, Kronstad's butcher)
For platformism (the most authoritative version of anarchism), it never got to the point of having that much authority, but it could have gone towards Bonapartism too. With a much weaker power base consisting of only the army and basic nationalism, so if you don't have Napoleon or Nestor Makhno, it probably won't work (and Makhno was too anti-nationalist to build his power on that, so I guess it wouldn't work).
'Oligarchic' and 'monarchic' aren't political ideologies btw. They're political systems.
In Leninism and derived systems, there is no need for the oligarchy to seize anything from the proletariat, the distinction between then and their notional parent in Marxism is vanguardism, which already incorporates an elite which becomes the oligarchy when seizing power “in the name of” the proletariat.
The last Republican president Trump, did so many things that invoked echos of the last major wave of fascism (Hitler and Mussolini) that one of the foremost experts on Nazism (Christopher Browning [1]) wrote a piece in the media directly making the comparison - not something experts on that period generally do lightly. [2]
That was in 2018, and it was followed by two more years of authoritarian power grabs culminating in an attempted coup.
Since then, Trump has continued to largely drive the policy and political approach of the Republican party. And other leading Republicans, like Desantis, have followed his lead. Those attacks have extended to the media (there's currently advancing in Florida that would require bloggers to register with the state if they cover the state) and there were calls to "eradicate trans people" at CPAC to resounding cheers (which is literally how the holocaust started [3])
So while I am not a fan of the Democratic party (there isn't a party in American politics that represents my political views), there is only one party that is clearly a neo-fascist party. And that party is far too close to regaining power for comfort.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Browning [2] https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/25/suffocation-of-d... [3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-his...
You know what a moral panic is, right? "Trump is Literally Hitler!!!!" is another moral panic. No, I don't expect anyone caught in the grips of one to believe they are caught in the grips of one, especially when prominent journalists, celebrities and pundits are also caught in it, so I won't try to convince you. iykyk.
Personally, I think a President lying to get his country into two (2) ruinous wars simultaneously, and the resultant, decades-long occupations is far more destructive than anything Trump could manage.
Overseeing FISA courts, mass surveillance, assassination lists did far more destruction to democracy than Trump even tried to do, but we're not ready for that conversation.
So, no, Trump is not heralding a wave of neo-fascism. Maybe if folks who believe so could put down the torches and pitchforks long enough to actually listen to the people who voted for him, we all could work together to vote in a principled President at least once in my lifetime. No, repeating to each other that Trump's voters were all hick white supremacist neo-fascists is not actually listening. Empathetic listening is listening. But, again, I don't expect to convince anyone of that here and now.
From the democrats or republicans? ("Both" would be closest to correct, if we assume your statement is true.)
Edit: oooh did I make the left or the right angry with this comment? Both sides are authoritarian and infringing on your rights wherever they can, while simultaneously convincing their followers that only the opponents do it.
Yes, there are always elements of the far-left and far-right who lean authoritarian, and any of the "-isms" (fascism, communism, etc.) are fully correlated or anti-correlated to authoritarianism.
But, in this current situation, to claim it is "both sides" is either naive or willful ignorance, and plays right into the authoritarian line.
The FACT is that a number of countries have fallen from democracy into authoritarianism (Hungary, turky, etc.), and these are Right-Wing movements. In the US, while the Dem party works to protect voting rights, the Republican party has gone full authoritarian, literally stating that democracy is less preferable thatn their rule, actively taking measures to select their voters, control the academy, the press, and industry, all of which are flat-out authoritarian. Their leader literally has just declared that "I am your retribution.”. That is not the statement of anyone even remotely working to lead a democratic society; it is the statement of someone who wants authority to lead a minority in crushing and killing anyone who opposes him.
False equivalency is a cheap cop-out at best, and more accurately actively promoting ignorance and failure to respond to emerging authoritarianism. In the current situation, it is frankly disgusting.
Stop it.
The Democrats are actively ignoring Supreme Court rulings (Bruen case and the Hochul administration in NY doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them they could not do, which was to declare the entire state a “sensitive location”).
The Democrats also redraw voting districts as they like, just as they accuse the republicans of.
You have states like CA intentionally leaking the names, addresses and purchase lists of gun owners.
The entirety of “social authoritarianism” belongs to the democrats.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/561825-comedians-are-ri...
Acting as if it is the same as the leader of a party claiming that "I am your retribution!"?
Acting as if it is the same as attempting to pass laws to require registration of anyone who writes about the govt and govt officials?
Acting as if it is the same as implementing laws to restrict other states from providing legal medical services, and using the entire state and commercial surveillance apparatus to criminally prosecute people who get medical treatment they don't like?
Directly writing laws that restrict teaching of actual history and other subjects they don't like?
This isn't small govt, this is authoritarianism.
In a free society, all of the institutions are relatively independent and in a balance of power and freedom, from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of govt, to the press, the academy, industry, religions, etc. Under authoritarianism, all of these institutions are coerced into service of the executive.
The Rs are actively coercing all of the other institutions into their service. The Ds are doing the exact opposite (I have plenty of issues vs Ds in other time periods, but this is the situation today).
Even on gerrymandering, the Ds are trying to pass national laws to use actual representative districting, the Rs arent. I cannot fault them for doing it defensively, and I guarantee you if offered a deal to stop it in EVERY state, the Ds would sign up that week, and the Rs would filibuster it to death. The Rs only hold the house because of massive gerrymandering.
If you cannot see any of that, you are beyond help. Just don't pretend to be some kind of even-handed, above-the-fray commentator. You are posting straight-up authoritarian apologias.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Just because it doesn’t affect you it’s “not that bad.” It is that bad. It is not “minor”. NYS is openly defying a Supreme Court Order, infringing on constitutional rights, saying “I don’t need data to prove (these laws) will change anything”, while citing racist laws from the 1800s as proof that their restrictions have history.
Antonyuk v Bruen: NYS Defense of the “good moral character clause” is “ From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms”. But that’s fine justification for you, because you don’t like guns. NYS literally defended its requirement for character references with a CT law from the 1800s that said “any free negro who wishes to carry a firearm must obtain character references from several white neighbors, attesting to his character and temperament”. If this was any other topic, the dems would be decrying this racist rhetoric, but instead they’re the ones pushing it forward and standing behind it, while pretending to be the arbiters of racial equality.
I’m not disagreeing with you on the republicans poor behavior. But if you think the dems are the saints here and are “upholding democracy, law and order” or something, then I don’t think you can be helped. You’re just as blind as the republicans followers, and doing the same “frothing at the mouth” that they do about how bad the other side is, while ignoring pretending your side is the savior.
Also on the gerrymandering, here, also from a source you’ll probably like: https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-ho.... Don’t pretend the dems would change anything about this.
On voting, more critically, who is trying to pass laws enabling voting, and who is passing laws restricting voting? Ds are trying to get more voting, and Rs are restricting it, restricting times, polling locations, even banning people handing out water in voting queues (which wouldn't exist if they weren't trying to restrict voting. In democracies, voters elect their leaders, in autocracies, the leaders select their voters, which is what Rs are doing.
For the sake of discussion, even if I grant you 100% that NYs actions on gun control are not legal, those will get sorted UNDER THE LAW, and rolled back, and penalized.
Meanwhile I do see Ds doing zero and Rs doing ALL of these pre-authoritarian steps, identical to those in pre-authoritarian Germany 1930s, Chile 1970s, & Hungary & Turkey 2000s:
— Threatening to use the state to jail enemies (Trump from "Lock her up!" chants to most recently at CPAC)
— Infringing 1A free speech, requiring registration of writers
— Actively and pre-emptively denying valid election results
— Infiltrating police departments and the enlisted ranks of the military
— Taking over school boards and local boards of elections
— Banning books
— Burning books
— Firing principals and teachers who defend multiracial, multicultural democracy while banning books that contain such “dangerous” ideas
— Demonizing queer people and outlawing drag shows (again infringing 1A rights)
— Demonizing Jews and blacks
— Actively and completely rewriting history, in particular January 6th
— Gerrymandering states so regardless of how people vote, Republicans control the levers of power
— Changing election laws so they can both make it harder for city-dwellers to vote and to ignore and then change the outcomes of elections they don’t like
— Building media structures that will support the authoritarian takeover when it happens
— Organizing armed paramilitary militias, with back-channel connections to local police
— Creating legal organizations to sanitize and rationalize ending messy democracy
— Spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories about Democrats and Jews using the dog whistle of “George Soros”
— Firebombing Texas Democratic Party’s Austin headquarters and threatening them that if they don’t stop trying to get Democrats elected worse will come
Sorry, a4a4a4, but the Ds are doing exactly zero of this
False equivalency is a lie. What you are doing is called "whataboutism", simply attempting to deflect the conversation from the crimes of your side to avoid accountability and change. Or, perhaps you really are merely fooled. Rethink, because you've got next to nothing convincing.
1) "Look what they're doing and how bad it is" 2) "We would never do something like that" 3) Do something like that. 4) "What do you mean we're doing that? This is 'whataboutism', we were talking about how terrible the other group is!"
I hope you will come around some day. I'm equally worried about the authoritarianism of both parties, and can't decide which dystopia I'd rather live in. Option A: No right to self-defense but having abortion rights, letting violent criminals out on $0 bail. Option B: A right to self-defense but living in a country which wants to legislate based on religion.
Moreover this behavior extends to denying that the violent January 6h insurrection was "merely tourists". Again, nearly every R and an entire RW media circus is propounding such lies. Yet there is zero equivalece anywhere else on the rest of today's political spectrum.
Calling our "whataboutism" is NOT simply complaining that you are complaining that Ds do similar stuff. It is that you attempt to deflect the conversation by calling out DIFFERENT, IRRELEVANT faults. Of course anyone can find faults, it's the easiest thing in the world to do. Clever of you to try to say that claims of "whataboutism" are merely complaining about getting called out for the same thing, but it is not the case. j
I note that you have claimed only that "Ds also do bad stuff", never acknoweledged any of the the wholesale list of outright R moves to authoritarianism, and never actually cited anything remotely similar to R authoritarian actions. Show some actual equivalence or you are merely running interference for actual authoritarianism.
If there is some ACTUAL meaningful (and plausible, not merely some powerless loon saying nonsense) moves by Ds towards real authoritarianism — undermining independence of branches of govt, the press, the academy, religions, industry, or bringing religion into govt — I'm all ears. But I've heard nothing but a small complaint about one state maybe overreaching on gun restrictions.
Seriously, I'm all about authoritarianism vs democracy, but I need real evidence.
I grew up in an R household, cast my first vote for an R POTUS candidate, and wrote the software that ran the 1996 R national convention (invited back, but the company had moved on to a different focus). I got a very intimate inside look and crash course during that '96 project.
These Rs are nothing like the current Rs. Back then, it was literally "Big Tent", and they were very concerned when Buchanon won some primaries, as those were uncompromising 'crazies'.
Today's crop is literally the inmates running the asylum.
Seriously, where are Dems attempting to RESTRICT the vote, or restrict anything else?
Where are they actually infringing on 2A "as part of a well-regulated militia"?
I've seen noting that is more than common-sense requirements so that literal lunatics can't get weapons of war as easily as a hamburger. I live Massachusetts, one of the most restrictive states, and it is nothing more than an inconvenience (3 hour course, regular bkgd check), and no, I can't have an AR-15, which is a weapon for people who can't shoot straight (literally designed for that). Oh, and airguns are entirely unregulated, so I can get a gun firing a 50-grain .45-caliber pellet at 900 fps with around 400 foot-pounds of energy without any question.
My personal view on gun restrictions is that it should be regulated by increasing firepower and firing rate. Kid's .22? Just a safety course and test, and you're good to go. More courses and tests of safety & marksmanship as firepower increases. By the time you get to AR-15++ (and I think ++ should go up to just short of WMD and NBC weapons), you'll have to prove high levels of skill, safety, psychological stability, and have insurance. And, when licensed, you'll be subject to militia call-up. Freedom, and responsibility as part of a well-regulated militia. Claiming that 2A means that any random angry nutjob can buy any weapon anytime is just lunacy, and it kills people by the hour.
No one is talking about no right to self-defense. Again, in the strictest state of MA, I can have a very nice arsenal. What we don't have is random mass shootings.
You are right about the "country which wants to legislate based on religion", but vastly understating it. Just go look at some of the literal Christo-fascist movements. You also overlook that under R authoritarianism, the right to self-defense will only be available to white males.
There is, and I've not seen you cite any even partial equivalence on the Dem side. I also see on the Dem side clear movements against the $0 bail, and the "Defund The Police" movement was effectively shut down, and the POTUS is strongly pro-police.
Yes, there are some pushing for "$0 bail", but two things. First, this is not autocracy, it is idiocy. Second, those rapidly get shut down, as people realize that living crime-free is also kind of a right that needs to be enforced.
As far as I can tell, the Ds are about PERMISSION and building, not locking down everything for the state.
Please show me where the Ds are actually doing anything like the list I presented of live, current R activities and bills that take away people's rights.
EDIT: add 2nd-to-last para.
I hate to tell you this but
> The US incarceration rate peaked in 2008 when about 1,000 in 100,000 U.S. adults were behind bars. That's 760 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages. This incarceration rate was similar to the average incarceration levels in the Soviet Union during the existence of the infamous Gulag system, when the Soviet Union's population reached 168 million, and 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in the Gulag prison camps and colonies.
> The total of arrests given in the Shvernik report for 1937-38 is 1 372 392, of whom 681 692 are given as shot. The total entering Gulag camps in that period as given by Zemskov is 1 853 513.
this is for one year mind you
False. Authoritarianism has nothing to do with socialism.
Authoritarianism thrives because the people fail at holding their leaders accountable for their actions.
The leaders will keep overreaching with their power as long as they see no consequences for them.