Democratic socialism isn’t socialism though, it’s capitalism with lots of government services.
The authoritarian part is pretty much baked in to “real” socialism since you need something to control the means of production until society is ready, and that hasn’t yet happened. Yes, there are other theorized structures, but they’re unproven.
Tankies (i.e. many of those on .ml) are into the authoritarian part, whereas people here are more into democratic socialism, which is another thing entirely.
Yes, indeed, socialism is an intellectual offshoot of capitalism/liberalism/enlightenment (not neoliberalism, of course) that emerged as a reaction to the industrial revolution (and the French revolution, or you could go as far back as the English civil war, with the levellers) as a reaction to the wealth inequality it creates and it predates Marxism, but communism coopted the term and made it seem exclusively authoritarian (because that was supposedly the only way to beat capital).
Engels wrote that in 1848, when The Communist Manifesto was published, socialism was respectable in Europe while communism was not. The Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France were considered respectable socialists while working-class movements that “proclaimed the necessity of total social change” denoted themselves communists.[54] This branch of socialism produced the communist work of Étienne Cabet in France and Wilhelm Weitling in Germany.[55] British moral philosopher John Stuart Mill discussed a form of economic socialism within free market. In later editions of his Principles of Political Economy (1848), Mill posited that “as far as economic theory was concerned, there is nothing in principle in economic theory that precludes an economic order based on socialist policies”[56][57] and promoted substituting capitalist businesses with worker cooperatives.[58] While democrats looked to the Revolutions of 1848 as a democratic revolution which in the long run ensured liberty, equality, and fraternity, Marxists denounced it as a betrayal of working-class ideals by a bourgeoisie indifferent to the proletariat.[59]
The history of terms isn’t particularly relevant, though it is interesting. For example, “libertarianism” largely came from socialism, and “liberalism” largely meant “small government,” whereas today libertarianism is pretty close to what liberalism used to mean, and “liberals” are in favor of large government.
Here’s what I mean by each term:
socialism - “Democratic ownership of the means of production,” as in, the government runs the economy
Democratic socialism - large central government with a lot of subsidised services, like healthcare; the means of production are private owned, but heavily taxed
libertarianism - “subscribes to the non-aggression principle, emphasizes radical individual freedoms and minimal taxation” - government services should be minimized to prevent top down abuse
communism - the end goal of socialism, which is a stateless society where people share what they produce so everyone has enough (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need)
I think socialism as defined above is unworkable because bureaucrats will abuse their power, communism is unworkable because people are selfish, and Democratic socialism is tricky because a large state tends to restrict the freedoms of its people. That’s why I align with libertarianism, but am on the left end where I believe there should be wealth redistribution through something like UBI (I prefer Negative Income Tax), so you get most of the benefits of socialism (everyone gets what they need) without most of the bureaucracy (no application process other than tax return).
Democratic socialism isn’t socialism though, it’s capitalism with lots of government services.
The authoritarian part is pretty much baked in to “real” socialism since you need something to control the means of production until society is ready, and that hasn’t yet happened. Yes, there are other theorized structures, but they’re unproven.
Tankies (i.e. many of those on .ml) are into the authoritarian part, whereas people here are more into democratic socialism, which is another thing entirely.
Yes, indeed, socialism is an intellectual offshoot of capitalism/liberalism/enlightenment (not neoliberalism, of course) that emerged as a reaction to the industrial revolution (and the French revolution, or you could go as far back as the English civil war, with the levellers) as a reaction to the wealth inequality it creates and it predates Marxism, but communism coopted the term and made it seem exclusively authoritarian (because that was supposedly the only way to beat capital).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Etymology
The history of terms isn’t particularly relevant, though it is interesting. For example, “libertarianism” largely came from socialism, and “liberalism” largely meant “small government,” whereas today libertarianism is pretty close to what liberalism used to mean, and “liberals” are in favor of large government.
Here’s what I mean by each term:
I think socialism as defined above is unworkable because bureaucrats will abuse their power, communism is unworkable because people are selfish, and Democratic socialism is tricky because a large state tends to restrict the freedoms of its people. That’s why I align with libertarianism, but am on the left end where I believe there should be wealth redistribution through something like UBI (I prefer Negative Income Tax), so you get most of the benefits of socialism (everyone gets what they need) without most of the bureaucracy (no application process other than tax return).