where do you stand on the socialist spectrum? i’ll start: my socialist views are a fusion of market socialism, welfarism, georgism and left-libertarianism - i took the leftvalues quiz (as shown in the photo attached in this post), and i got “centrist marxism”. you DON’T have to take the quiz though.
EDIT: i just added the link
yeah see all that is exactly why these things don’t jive with me. Its like you have to buy in to the definitions of things in a very specific way. basically for me socialism is a spectrum of social democracy where maybe the far end is what socialists call socialism and capitalism is along the same spectrum. Then for me democracy is about each individual having an equal hold to authority to another. This actually is one thing about communities. So few define themselves in the sidebar and two communities could have the same name but the makers/moderators could be viewing what it should be like very differently. I wish more would spend some time to figure out what will go there before they even make the community.
People value and use definitions that accurately describe reality and its relation. Democracy is quite literally rule by the majority, and it isn’t counterposed to the working classes forcibly nationalizing industry held by capitalists. Such an action is “authoritarian” yet absolutely democratic. Socialism and capitalism aren’t a spectrum, because you can’t have classes sharing power over the state equally. As such, either public or private ownership will be principle, either the bourgeoisie or proletariat will be in control of the state. There’s variance in socialization, but fundamentally the “centerpoint” doesn’t exist.
A democracy deciding to nationalize an industry is not authoritarian to me. I do believe in individual rights and such but that again has to be determined in a democractic process. So any restriction to democracy must come from a democratic process. We are just going to disagree on the spectrum thing because we define them differently.
It’s absolutely authoritarian, but that doesn’t make it bad or not democratic. Authority is using the power of the state to certain ends.
you can say any democratic action is authoritarian then. Its not a given that industries are private or that private property is a thing. This is something agreed on democratically. The first thing a democracy has to do is setup its structure and within that is the method to change the structure.
The state doesn’t need to exist forever. The enforcement of will of one part onto another is using authority and thus authoritarian, though I don’t think that’s inherently a bad thing.
yeah again though that means any action is authoritarian. authoritarian is not about specific actions. Its about action being taken by one or a limited number of folks without input from all individuals. In an ideal type of democracy it would be like the borg and every decision would be decided by a majority of all but realistically you have a republic where representatives are agreed upon to take action. A single president taking action that has been allowed and is legal by majority in creation of the sytem or by their congressional reps and who further assigned the job by a majority in a process agreed to by the majority is democratic. The same action taken by someone who took power by force is authitarian. the action itself is not authoritarian or democratic.
Democracy means rule by the majority, though. It sounds more like you’re trying to narrowly define words your own way.
I already explained the borg vs republic issue. A republic is still a democracy its just less so on the spectrum from direct democracy. Just like a sole king or more authoritarian than a cabal of olgiarchs.