Stalin’s first five year plan changed that for tens of millions as they suddenly had running water, electricity and public schooling/vocational training.
I applaud you for acknowledging the benefits of socialism even though it sounds like you disagree with it overall.
I’d encourage you, though, to think more about what “authoritarian” actually means. All states claim authority to use violence. The only limits states acknowledge on how much violence they can use are the limits they agree to (and therefore can abandon at their convenience). All states sharply respond to certain types of dissent – certainly violent dissent, almost always dissent that (the state claims) is associated with a foreign state, and often even peaceful dissent. This applies to any liberal democracy you can name. Look at how many peaceful protesters the U.S. brutalized in 2020, look at the recent U.K. ruling on sentences for peaceful protesters blocking roads, look at how Germany preemptively bans even discussion of Nazism.
So when Cuba arrests dissenters who are backed by an extremely hostile foreign power, is that any different from what the U.S. would do? When the USSR arrested nationalist dissenters who sympathized with Nazis, is that any different than what Germany does? What actually makes these “authoritarian” countries different from the “good” ones, apart from having the audacity to reject capitalism?
Capitalist society has tried to fearmonger about vague “Authoritarianism” as long as it has been around. They were calling socialism “authoritarian” before Mao, before Stalin, before any actual socialist state even existed to use as a case study.
“Good faith” just means being willing to hear us out. Obviously I’d like it if you would change your mind, but as long as you’re trying to understand our point of view(even if you don’t change yours) you’re still welcome here.
My point was that capitalist media of the 1800s was accusing socialism of being “authoritarian” before any socialist nations existed. How could they declare something to be “authoritarian” (or anything for that matter) before it actually existed? Does that not seem like poisoning the well?
And it seems your understanding of these nations comes solely from a western, capitalist country’s interpretation of them and their system.
Are their systems “authoritarian” or are they just “different” to the system you live in?
Maybe try and read some primary sources on how they structure their system, and listen to what they say about their own system, then weigh what they say about it with what you already know, compare and contrast, that sort of thing. If the only information you get about a nation comes directly from their biggest enemies, of course you’re going to think they’re all horrible.
Why do you think that a government will oppose a complete system change, but will allow a party change? You’re a pol-sci student, you can get this one!
If a government had two socialist parties, would that make it more democratic and less authoritarian? But if both parties had the same goals, what would even be the point of having two of them?
Would it actually be more democratic to have two parties, or would that just be a means of enabling the people to feel like things are more democratic, because they get to vote between two parties (but both parties ultimately have the same goals.)
Now imagine say…a capitalist country that does that. That has two parties, but both parties represent the capitalist class, not the people in general. Is that actually democratic? The people get to choose after all! But they only get a choice between two parties that don’t actually represent them.
What is a democracy if not a government built around the representation of the people? If the people are feeling represented by their government, does it matter how many parties their are? More parties doesn’t mean more democratic. What matters is that those parties represent the people. Even if there is just a single party, as long as the people have proper representation, it is democratic.
The issue is that capitalism has made itself indissoluble. Capitalism is very good at co-opting any threat and integrating it into it. Like how you can buy Leninade in the US (which I hear is just mid). Well, except fascism lol (cf 1945).
Any revolutionary message can be made into a commodity to be bought and sold, reduced to its simple exchange value – which is something Marx talked about extensively.
Capitalism doesn’t need to jail people for speaking up against it. It can defang them completely and integrate their message in the pursuit of profit. Like how Just Stop Oil is being funded by an oil heiress. Was the USSR at a same developmental stage that they could allow people to “suggest” a completely different system?
And the proof this mechanism is working… is that we’re having this conversation. Vocal disagreement with capitalism is useless. It does not materially do anything against capitalism. Whenever we turn that disagreement into action and get slightly too close, that’s when the arm of the state comes up to ban our parties (authoritarian by your definition), jail us (authoritarian by your definition), close down our media outlets (authoritarian by your definition) and even sometimes team up with fascists to assassinate us (authoritarian by your definition).
But try suggesting in 1790s France that you should have a king again.
And the DPRK isn’t even communist it is a hereditary monarchy masking as “communist” where you cannot suggest a new leader within the party
The DPRK is led by a coalition of three parties; the Social-Democrats, the Chongdu party (religious), and the Workers’ Party. I dread to see what they teach you in your polisci degree because this is pretty fundamental stuff about the DPRK, even Wikipedia talks about it, it’s not like it’s some super obscure factoid.
So it worked
deleted by creator
I applaud you for acknowledging the benefits of socialism even though it sounds like you disagree with it overall.
I’d encourage you, though, to think more about what “authoritarian” actually means. All states claim authority to use violence. The only limits states acknowledge on how much violence they can use are the limits they agree to (and therefore can abandon at their convenience). All states sharply respond to certain types of dissent – certainly violent dissent, almost always dissent that (the state claims) is associated with a foreign state, and often even peaceful dissent. This applies to any liberal democracy you can name. Look at how many peaceful protesters the U.S. brutalized in 2020, look at the recent U.K. ruling on sentences for peaceful protesters blocking roads, look at how Germany preemptively bans even discussion of Nazism.
So when Cuba arrests dissenters who are backed by an extremely hostile foreign power, is that any different from what the U.S. would do? When the USSR arrested nationalist dissenters who sympathized with Nazis, is that any different than what Germany does? What actually makes these “authoritarian” countries different from the “good” ones, apart from having the audacity to reject capitalism?
deleted by creator
If you’re here in good faith, I would recommend reading “On Authority.” It isn’t too long, more of a pamphlet than anything else.
https://redsails.org/on-authority/
Capitalist society has tried to fearmonger about vague “Authoritarianism” as long as it has been around. They were calling socialism “authoritarian” before Mao, before Stalin, before any actual socialist state even existed to use as a case study.
deleted by creator
“Good faith” just means being willing to hear us out. Obviously I’d like it if you would change your mind, but as long as you’re trying to understand our point of view(even if you don’t change yours) you’re still welcome here.
My point was that capitalist media of the 1800s was accusing socialism of being “authoritarian” before any socialist nations existed. How could they declare something to be “authoritarian” (or anything for that matter) before it actually existed? Does that not seem like poisoning the well?
And it seems your understanding of these nations comes solely from a western, capitalist country’s interpretation of them and their system. Are their systems “authoritarian” or are they just “different” to the system you live in? Maybe try and read some primary sources on how they structure their system, and listen to what they say about their own system, then weigh what they say about it with what you already know, compare and contrast, that sort of thing. If the only information you get about a nation comes directly from their biggest enemies, of course you’re going to think they’re all horrible.
deleted by creator
By that definition every state would be “authoritarian”. Try overthrowing your government and see how that goes.
Are you actually listening to what you are saying? Because it really doesn’t sound like you’ve thought this definition through.
deleted by creator
You’re almost there!
Why do you think that a government will oppose a complete system change, but will allow a party change? You’re a pol-sci student, you can get this one!
If a government had two socialist parties, would that make it more democratic and less authoritarian? But if both parties had the same goals, what would even be the point of having two of them? Would it actually be more democratic to have two parties, or would that just be a means of enabling the people to feel like things are more democratic, because they get to vote between two parties (but both parties ultimately have the same goals.)
Now imagine say…a capitalist country that does that. That has two parties, but both parties represent the capitalist class, not the people in general. Is that actually democratic? The people get to choose after all! But they only get a choice between two parties that don’t actually represent them.
What is a democracy if not a government built around the representation of the people? If the people are feeling represented by their government, does it matter how many parties their are? More parties doesn’t mean more democratic. What matters is that those parties represent the people. Even if there is just a single party, as long as the people have proper representation, it is democratic.
The issue is that capitalism has made itself indissoluble. Capitalism is very good at co-opting any threat and integrating it into it. Like how you can buy Leninade in the US (which I hear is just mid). Well, except fascism lol (cf 1945).
Any revolutionary message can be made into a commodity to be bought and sold, reduced to its simple exchange value – which is something Marx talked about extensively.
Capitalism doesn’t need to jail people for speaking up against it. It can defang them completely and integrate their message in the pursuit of profit. Like how Just Stop Oil is being funded by an oil heiress. Was the USSR at a same developmental stage that they could allow people to “suggest” a completely different system?
And the proof this mechanism is working… is that we’re having this conversation. Vocal disagreement with capitalism is useless. It does not materially do anything against capitalism. Whenever we turn that disagreement into action and get slightly too close, that’s when the arm of the state comes up to ban our parties (authoritarian by your definition), jail us (authoritarian by your definition), close down our media outlets (authoritarian by your definition) and even sometimes team up with fascists to assassinate us (authoritarian by your definition).
But try suggesting in 1790s France that you should have a king again.
The DPRK is led by a coalition of three parties; the Social-Democrats, the Chongdu party (religious), and the Workers’ Party. I dread to see what they teach you in your polisci degree because this is pretty fundamental stuff about the DPRK, even Wikipedia talks about it, it’s not like it’s some super obscure factoid.