I disagree! Socialism by definition requires the people to own their own homes and the places where they work, which is difficult in a government not run by the people. Socialism must be democratic, anything else is just red fascism.

it can be via an authoritarian state that (claims to) represent the worker.

I may have been hasty, seems you agree! But I would like to stress that any government which claims to be socialist but makes unions illegal and enforces capitalism and private property shouldn't really get to call itself socialist or communist. They're just state capitalist oligarchies.

[–] jorp@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'll give you that. I am leaving room in my definition for anarcho-communism and anarcho-socialism (or even anarcho-syndicalism and other left-anarchist systems) and those don't require a state.

Democracy is a decent enough way to run a state, but anarchists would critique democracy (from the left) by pointing out that it can violently compel people based on the will of the majority, and so consensus building, federation, and mutual aid can replace a democratic state while accomplishing socialism.

[–] will_steal_your_username@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 months ago

Ah, I see! I was only disagreeing with the inclusion of authoritarian socialism, which in my mind is an oxymoron.

Democracy can take many shapes and I would argue anarchy must always be democratic as well, even if it is way more democratic than current systems.