@joesabin @bethsawin Socialism = "stuff I don't like."

@12thRITS @joesabin@mastodon.world @bethsawin My partner's grandfather was sentenced to 18 years in prison for criticising the government, in a socialist nation. It is surreal that we still talk about socialism.

@naciketas @12thRITS @joesabin @bethsawin My uncle's brother was killed by police when participating in a strike, in a capitalist nation. It is surreal that we still talk about capitalism.

@jackofalltrades @12thRITS @joesabin@mastodon.world @bethsawin The difference is that in a capitalist country the policeman is prosecuted. But I am not defending capitalism. In a capitalist country I grew up in a 38 square metre house. But to counter capitalism with socialism is to be left behind a hundred years ago.

@naciketas @jackofalltrades @12thRITS @joesabin @bethsawin Haw, you think the police are prosecuted, that's adorable!

@miriamrobern @jackofalltrades @12thRITS @joesabin@mastodon.world @bethsawin

This is yesterday's news: five policemen were convicted of beating a prisoner in San Gimignano prison. They are not always convicted: but to think that this is the same as in an undemocratic country is to be in bad faith.
https://www.tag24.it/529333-carcere-san-gimignano-tortura/

@naciketas @miriamrobern @12thRITS @joesabin @bethsawin

The police were there to break the strike that the capitalist state deemed "illegal". They did exactly what they were supposed to do. Hundreds of workers were beaten and arrested. Think who in this scenario is the one being "prosecuted".

Regarding the "going back to socialism" logic, I discussed this recently in another thread, so I'll just link my previous toot: https://mas.to/@jackofalltrades/109961408822252239

@jackofalltrades @miriamrobern @12thRITS @joesabin@mastodon.world @bethsawin In Italy, as in all democratic countries, the right to strike is guaranteed by law. Which country are you referring to?

@naciketas @miriamrobern @12thRITS @joesabin @bethsawin UK in the '80s.

@jackofalltrades @miriamrobern @12thRITS @joesabin@mastodon.world @bethsawin Your thesis is that the UK in the 80 was the same thing af the Albany of Enver Hoxha?

@naciketas @miriamrobern @12thRITS @joesabin @bethsawin No, don't build a straw man.

I only provided two counterarguments to your claim that "in all democratic countries the right to strike is guaranteed by law". The reality is that in capitalist countries the government is in symbiotic relationship with the capitalist class, and will police labor if necessary.

@jackofalltrades @miriamrobern @12thRITS @joesabin@mastodon.world @bethsawin The matter is more complex. In a democratic system, there are parties that serve the interests of the ruling class - in Italy the Christian Democrats, the party of the corrupt, served the interests of the rich and the mafia for decades -, parties that serve the interests of the workers, trade unions, movements and so on. At times there may be authoritarian drifts, but really no comparison with communist or fascist regimes is seriously possible.

@naciketas @miriamrobern @12thRITS @joesabin @bethsawin Why no serious comparison is possible?

Socialism as implemented by USSR grew out of collapse of a feudal government after a devastating war, and as a reaction to failed revolutions in Western Europe. The reformist strands of socialism keep influencing European politics to this day.

Fascism grew out of economic hardships in *democratic* states.

There are many lessons to be learned from history and many angles to make comparisons from.

@jackofalltrades @miriamrobern @12thRITS @joesabin@mastodon.world @bethsawin Italy was not very democratic when fascism took hold. It was a country with appalling illiteracy, with an economy that was in many ways still feudal, especially in the south, and an exceptional power of the Catholic Church. If the historical conditions justified the violence - this seems to me to be your thesis - then the fascist violence was justified.

@naciketas @miriamrobern @12thRITS @joesabin @bethsawin On the contrary, not to justify, but to learn. To understand the conditions that enabled this or that authoritarian government, and not just stop at "-isms" and call it a day.

Socialism lives on to this day, in many forms. To connect with your initial comment that sparked this discussion: that's why we still talk about socialism, and will continue to do so.

@jackofalltrades @miriamrobern @12thRITS @joesabin@mastodon.world @bethsawin Interesting. Socialism is an ideology that under ideal conditions could create heaven. Unfortunately, however, it has never found ideal conditions, and has therefore systematically created hell. It was just bad luck.

@naciketas @jackofalltrades @12thRITS @joesabin @bethsawin

No.

Socialism is "we can make the world better if we bother to fucking try for once."

Authoritarianism is "fuck you, do as I say."

If you combine those, it goes bad. But you you combine ANYTHING and Authoritarianism, it's bad. Because it's the Authoritarianism that's bad.

And just to be absolutely clear, Capitalism is "fuck you, do as I say, because I own the infrastructure." Capitalism *is* authoritarianism, and is bad.

@miriamrobern @jackofalltrades @12thRITS @joesabin@mastodon.world @bethsawin No serious discussion is possible with completely arbitrary definitions. I am an anarchist, authoritarianism is my enemy. But John Dewey, an American, is anti-authoritarian, and Anton Makarenko, a Russian and communist, is authoritarian.

@naciketas @miriamrobern @12thRITS @joesabin @bethsawin

Completely arbitrary definitions? What definition of socialism are you using then?

Are you including social-democratic parties present in many European countries, like e.g. Labour Party in Norway that won every election since 1930? Is that hell or not socialism?

How about China that is now the world's largest economy? Is that in your eyes hell or not socialism?

If you're confused about terms perhaps give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism a look.

@jackofalltrades @miriamrobern @12thRITS @joesabin@mastodon.world @bethsawin No, I consider Miriam's definition of authoritarianism arbitrary. A society becomes _strongly_ authoritarian when the difference between state and civil society is blurred. When, for example, the state arrogates to itself the right to meddle in family relations.