Saint-Raphaël's right-wing mayor, no stranger to media stunts, has vowed to 'put an end to the lies about the reality of communist totalitarianism.' In response, the French Communist Party and other left-wing groups denounced the 'revisionism of history.'
From my perspective as a radical social liberal, it seems to me that totalitarian and authoritarian outcomes are inherent to any form of socialism which embrace revolution, or the complete replacement of societal institutions, and communism is of course the poster child. This seems to happen whether or not totalitarian traits existed in the ideology, before coming to power.
When you go back in history, and read letters written by the losers of party power struggles, before they lost, or read accounts of things they said, you will often find their sheer naivety to be striking, I find.
My personal theory is that several of the methods used to come to power, many of the power structures that emerge, and the eventual new institutions that are created, are strong tools for exercising power, while they often only have weak guards to prevent abuses of power. The most cynical members of a party will use and abuse them, they will come to dominate, and they will not get rid of these weaknesses in the system, thereby removing their own advantage in wielding, maintaining and grabbing for more power.
It’s interesting how socialism is an ideology that is very focused on power relations and dynamics (employer vs. employee for instance), presents itself as an equaliser or a liberator of people being subject to others, and has a lot of political theory at its foundation, and yet, it seemingly has such a glaring blind spot of falling victim to itself.
I think everyone on the far left would benefit immensely, from going back and reading a whole lot of early liberal thought about power and the state. From back when it was more just a strand of political theory, than an ideology as such. And when I say they would benefit, I mean it genuinely, in that it would help them ensure that whatever political change they might become a part in bringing about, will be able to serve it’s original goals, rather than quickly become corrupted.
I am struggling to think of much there that would be inherently incompatible with even far-left socialism. Except, perhaps, if your view is that the state is, and should be total and absolute, then that is of course incompatible with putting restrictions on its power, or dividing it into separate parts that must check each other.
This seems to happen whether or not totalitarian traits existed in the ideology, before coming to power.
“Whether or not” examples on the “not” part?
I am struggling to think of much there that would be inherently incompatible with even far-left socialism.
The right to private property and wealth accumulation. Aka the so-called “free” market. Property rights as a core part of liberty (meaning that when you violate someone’s private property you violate their liberty) is an idea at the core of liberal thought. Meanwhile socialist ideologies are all built on the idea of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. This is a fundamental, irreconcilable contradiction.
From my perspective as a radical social liberal, it seems to me that totalitarian and authoritarian outcomes are inherent to any form of socialism which embrace revolution, or the complete replacement of societal institutions, and communism is of course the poster child. This seems to happen whether or not totalitarian traits existed in the ideology, before coming to power.
When you go back in history, and read letters written by the losers of party power struggles, before they lost, or read accounts of things they said, you will often find their sheer naivety to be striking, I find.
My personal theory is that several of the methods used to come to power, many of the power structures that emerge, and the eventual new institutions that are created, are strong tools for exercising power, while they often only have weak guards to prevent abuses of power. The most cynical members of a party will use and abuse them, they will come to dominate, and they will not get rid of these weaknesses in the system, thereby removing their own advantage in wielding, maintaining and grabbing for more power.
It’s interesting how socialism is an ideology that is very focused on power relations and dynamics (employer vs. employee for instance), presents itself as an equaliser or a liberator of people being subject to others, and has a lot of political theory at its foundation, and yet, it seemingly has such a glaring blind spot of falling victim to itself.
I think everyone on the far left would benefit immensely, from going back and reading a whole lot of early liberal thought about power and the state. From back when it was more just a strand of political theory, than an ideology as such. And when I say they would benefit, I mean it genuinely, in that it would help them ensure that whatever political change they might become a part in bringing about, will be able to serve it’s original goals, rather than quickly become corrupted.
I am struggling to think of much there that would be inherently incompatible with even far-left socialism. Except, perhaps, if your view is that the state is, and should be total and absolute, then that is of course incompatible with putting restrictions on its power, or dividing it into separate parts that must check each other.
“Whether or not” examples on the “not” part?
The right to private property and wealth accumulation. Aka the so-called “free” market. Property rights as a core part of liberty (meaning that when you violate someone’s private property you violate their liberty) is an idea at the core of liberal thought. Meanwhile socialist ideologies are all built on the idea of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. This is a fundamental, irreconcilable contradiction.