• butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Listen man I know I’m edging pretty close to “no true Scotsman,” but hear me out… it’s not that it wasn’t “true socialism,” but whether something is socialist economically isn’t necessarily tied to authoritarianism. Like, fuck tankies, but also I do think that combining market economics and truly representative democracy with proportional representation and freedom of speech and association with socialist ownership structures (as in the abolition of corporate governance from any input from, frankly, absentee “owners”) is the move. Socialism doesn’t have to be authoritarian, nor does it have to be against market economics. Ya know?

      • arrow74@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        I got a death threat from a tankie today because I suggested that Kamala would have not been as bad as the current administration.

        That was fun, don’t worry I was banned shortly thereafter from that community

        • butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          That’s true, but i don’t know if it’s fair to say that mandating employee ownership is anything other than socialist. Not Marxist, sure. Certainly leftist. But isn’t employee ownership and governance of the means of production, by definition, socialism?

            • geissi@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              7 days ago

              Socialism has other elements

              I think your argument might be more convincing if you actually mentioned these elements.

              Marx did not think it was socialism

              Other people had other definitions even before Marx, so I’m not sure why his should be the only valid definition.

              Just my two cents.

            • butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              Ah I see. I definitely have more learning to do than. In that case how is libertarian socialism socialism? Doesn’t that definition invalidate basically everything but vanguardism?

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        yeah I keep hearing how we’re a democracy but I’ve never felt it ever was. We have the technology to do a direct democracy but no one really wants to do it.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      I mean state capitalism is by definition not communism. This isn’t a no true Scotsman they’re just two different things.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          In that case we’d say “X can’t exist”, not “X is Y”. That’s the case for the word utopia, for example. Also non-state capitalism socialism exists and includes for instance the Paris Commune, anarchist Ukraine and for a surviving example Rojava.