By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rath on 20 April 2012
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:

Socialism is a catch all phrase for a variety of economic philosophies - basically involving high government regulation, socialization of various aspects of industry and redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation. It doesn't fit on the liberarian-authoritarian line at all and you can have an authoritarian socialist state (leninist/stalinist communism) or a libertarian socialist state (social democracy).

What about those aspects aren't authoritarian?  Every law passed by majority consnet that others disagree with has some level of autortarinism behind it and hurts individualism.

It's all just a matter of HOW authoritarian it is.

Hugo Chavez is a good example that clears up the misconception pretty eaisly. He has broad power to wipe out corruption fairly arbitrairly granted by his people.

Most socialist democracies just don't seem authortarian because most socialist democracies are first world nations that are pretty well off and feel no need to exercise it's full power.

Basically this graph has economic freedom on the left to right and individual freedom on the vertical axis. Those things I mentioned only limit economic freedom, not individual freedom. Hugo Chavez is a more authoritarian socialist (and despite being democratically elected his views are not social democratic views). Compare him to somebody like Noam Chomsky who is an extreme libertarian (to the point of being basically an anarchist) while at the same time being socialist.

Socialism does not deal with the authoritarian-libertarian axis on this graph, only with the left-right one.