Rigby5
Diamond Member
It is impossible to separate socialism from authoritarianism. When the government enforces by force, by guns, and by the threat of imprisonment, the payment of taxes required to give to those who will not work the rewards of those who did work, then the government is authoritarian. If the government does not enforce, by all those means specified, the payment of taxes then they would have absolutely no revenue or means of redistributing the wealth. All that would remain would be charity - that help given to those who have less out of the kindness of the hearts of those who have more.
The only other way, many would claim, is full communism - where the state owns the means of production, therefore there is no tax. The government takes the fruits of all labor and doles it out according to the government's opinion of need. But that doesn't work without the authoritarianism, either. When someone who works sees those who do not work getting equal share of the fruit, those who once worked would quit working. Communism, of course, cannot stand that. As the owner of the means of production, they own the people and must use force to make at least some of the people work else there would be no fruits to dole out.
Socialism must be authoritarian. They are two sides of the same coin.
Socialism has NOTHING at all to do with redistribution of wealth, which is what you described, "the payment of taxes required to give to those who will not work the rewards of those who did work".
Whether or not a society decided to support those unable or unwilling to support themselves is a welfare aspect totally separate from socialism.
Socialism is just when some community decides to finance or regulate something collectively.
I have relatives in Kansas who got their community to collectively invest in and build grain elevators for the benefit of the entire community.
THAT is all socialism is, and it can NEVER be authoritarian.
If anything is authoritarian, that would automatically preclude it from being socialist, because then it would not be communal, collective, or collaborative.
It is capitalism that is for an elite minority, so then anything authoritarian pretty much has to be capitalism.
Authoritarian means by a minority and is capitalist, while socialism means by the majority.
And in the US, instead of investing in socialist enterprise, we implement socialism just by regulation.
Like laws against child labor is sufficient for socialism.
It does not require collective ownership.
And by the way, full communism does not mean the state owns everything, but that means of production involving more than a family, would be collectively owned, not by the state, but by the people. But communism is a theoretical that no one but families and religious communes have ever tried.