It's also more of a dictatorship vs functioning democracy distinction than a capitalism vs socialism distinction

The soviet union had most of the things on the list, but that's because it was a dictatorship, it was never run by the proletariat, it still had an elite and that elite was particularly nasty.

From what I gather, Cuba, while not perfect, is in a much better place in terms of human rights, and has to feed its people despite sanctions. And we have several nations still practicing capitalism that aren't dictatorships.

Of course the US conservatives have done a lot to make people conflate socialism with authoritarianism and lukewarm liberals with socialists.

Not if you read the closeted fascist warning signs on democracy.

The point is that people will pretend that socialism = authoritarianism, just because there were a bunch of countries claiming to be socialist in history, despite being incredibly undemocratic.

Socialism is the workers controlling society. So by definition (or at least my interpretation), none of those countries were/are socialist anyway.

Politics is far too much like team sports for a lot of people.

People on Lemmy act like criticizing the misdeeds of the USSR is an attack on all of socialism's principles.

Our economic system has spawned a new type of player, the Sociopathic Oligarch, who has embraced authoritarianism to protect their fortunes.

Extremism is also the problem, because it allows economic systems to be taken to extremes, which become unbalanced and that then unbalances other systems, like the political systems, which when given the right push by a particular aspiring authoritarian can easily end up landing on authoritarianism.

The middle ground is usually the safest place to be. Socialism and capitalism are economic tools, they both have their place, for certain purpose. Extremists would tell you one is strictly, absolutely, and universally better than the other and imply that thus we should only ever use one system for everything (usually without strictly, absolutely, or universally defining what "better" actually means, because it's usually a pretty self-serving form of "better"). That is an extremist position that many capitalists take, and most of western society spent the last oh, hundred years or so believing to various degrees.

Socialized medicine is perfectly sensible, for example, and that's a hill I'm perfectly willing to die on (but because I have access to socialized medicine I probably won't have to die, and I won't be bankrupted either, hooray :P)

Socialism is not perfect, but neither is capitalism, neither is democracy, neither is pretty much anything. Perfection is a myth. There is no perfect tool, not in a workshop and not in a civilization. Some are more powerful than others. Some are more dangerous. Often the most powerful ones are the most dangerous. That doesn't mean they are bad, but it does mean we must respect them and use them with care and attention, and only when appropriate. We don't have perfect tools, and we probably never will but we can have a large and growing collection of tools we can use to manage our lives, our society, and our civilization. The more tools we know how to use safely the better. Only using one tool for everything is a stupid way of doing things, and it can be dangerous in its own way.

Capitalism is authoritarian on at least the company scale (and more so at a society level, when you identify the coercive control that's exerted because you can either toe the line or be homeless - as a oversimplification).

So, you are perhaps correct that the problem is with authoritianism, but it's just that capitalism, as an economic system, is authoritian.

If you can't vote on who manages your workplace, and have to comply else lose your job (and depending on the country, you house, your healthcare, etc) that's authoritarian, just in a slightly different context.

Things are inevitable if you don't change policy and culture.

They are just betting everyone is so overwhelmed they can't see what is really happening. So far it is working.

Sure! Looking forward to finally see one of these good guys!

Anyone ever saw one??

If you are honest it’s undeniable that half that list can be linked to every country ever attempting communism.

Problem is Americans don’t understand there is something in between their insane system and North Korea. Its called democratic socialism

For certain kinds of communism/socialism, authoritarianism does seem pretty much inevitable. It's not inevitable for more distributed community-oriented forms. But for any socialist/communist government organized at the national level, authoritarianism seems inevitable to me.

In order to seize the means of production, you have to do just that - seize it. You have to send scores of armed men out with guns to physically take control over all the productive assets in a country. And those assets are then available for the state to use, for whatever reasons it wants. Sure, the people in power will promise to use those resources for the greater good, but who is going to stop them if they don't?

If we've seen anything in the last 20 years in the US, it's that power and wealth are interchangeable. Wealth is power. Power is wealth. It's why I oppose the very existence of billionaires - no individual should have that much power. If that weren't true, I wouldn't care so much about them. I really don't care if a billionaire builds an obnoxiously large yacht. I do care if they start throwing their money around and controlling national policy. And whenever a government seizes control of the entire economy, it now owns the entire wealth of a nation. And if you have all the assets, have complete authority to decide who works what job, have complete say on where people get to live? Well that government now has total power over everyone's lives.

Any government that powerful immediately falls to authoritarianism. Why? Because there is one and only one locus of power in that country now. Ambitious people can't start a business or seek power through some other level of government. All resources are controlled by the central state. If you want to have any influence at all over that society, you need to get in power of that central government. The government is all-powerful. The stakes are total. Power is completely centralized. You as a leader either control everything or nothing.

It's rather impossible not to end up with authoritarianism when a form of government requires, as a first step, to gather all power and wealth under the control of a single authority.

We have a blatant politically aligned trillionaire, capitalism has now become a power structure that will devour both, not by means of authority or force, just from the attrition of allowing a trillionaire to exist and by that very existence we will be consumed via interest alone. Everything is now resource control, and capitalism is the only lever of power because we’ve allowed one singular entity to have that level of capital influence and control.

Conceptually I agree, this is how these systems would be competently applied for stable political structures, but we’re not working with stable structures anymore and in practice that’s not how it’s been working. If we had politicians who actually understood political and economic systems and structures and gave the slightest shit about stability and longevity (this isn’t just America, this is a global statement) then these logics would apply, but nigh every politician is currently trying, feverishly, to hammer the square block through the round hole and they will die before they ever stop.

Capitalism and socialism are economic models. Democracy, authoritarianism, dictatorship, and communism are systems of government.

🙄 Communism isn't an economic model?

100%

The reason why socialism gets stereotyped as authoritarian is that most hyper-capitalist societies are very resistant to becoming much more socialist in short order, so authoritarian factions emerge to make (violent) revolution, which begets an authoritarian system of government when those factions finish the revolution and are in a perfect position to fill the power vacuum.

Democratic capitalism lmao.

Anything can be true when you make shit up

In the US we’re not quite USSR/CCP-levels

We never are. The Foreigners are always worse.

I think this meme will be true soon.

I've been reading this since the Reagan Administration. It's also Big Government. It's always Authoritarianism. The remedy is always some flavor of Deregulation or States Rights or (Capitalist) Anarchism or A Return to The Constitutional Principles.

it’s authoritarianism that does this

Real Literal Reaganism