this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
404 points (94.5% liked)

Explain Like I'm Five

19306 readers
17 users here now

Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
sabbah@lemmy.world
AradFort@lemmy.world
rikudou@lemmings.world
Don_Dickle@lemmy.world
Rikudou_Sage@lemmy.world
404
ELI5 What is the hate against socialism? I mean doesn't it mean a system where the people take care of themselves and neighbors? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago by Patnou@lemmy.world to c/explainlikeimfive@lemmy.world
316 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 21 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

There are various kinds of socialism. Some "take care of themselves and neighbors" & some merely claim to.

One of the merely claims types is authoritarian socialism, which includes Marxism–Leninism.

Authoritarian socialism, or socialism from above, is an economic and political system supporting some form of socialist economics while rejecting political pluralism. As a term, it represents a set of economic-political systems describing themselves as "socialist" and rejecting the liberal-democratic concepts of multi-party politics, freedom of assembly, habeas corpus, and freedom of expression, either due to fear of counter-revolution or as a means to socialist ends.

That ideology does not respect & protect inherent individual rights & liberties recognized since the Enlightenment. Authoritarian socialism is hated for abusing human rights, and it's often incorrectly assumed that all socialism is authoritarian. That explains the hatred.

Kinds of socialism that respect & protect human rights do exist, however, and they have a better claim to a system of self & mutual care. There's little reason to hate those.

[–] thetentacle@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (3 children)

It would seem the common problem in any political system is always authoritarianism? Is there historical case where a king or similar actually helped the people that I can study more?

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 days ago

I mean i'd imagine there were quite a lot of kings that were much like the modern king of e.g. Norway, where they really don't do much other than PR and rubber stamping decisions.

Any ruler needs support from other powerful people, and since crowns were usually hereditary that means sometimes the new king won't be a miserable sack of shit.
I mean put yourself in the position of some medieval prince whose dad was poisoned by an advisor or something, yeah sure you can live in luxury but it's fucking risky, so if you don't just opt to flee 5 countries over in hope of peace you'd probably try to be as inoffensive as possible and just gently nudge things in a non-shitty direction whenever possible.

So granted, not "good" kings, but considering how many rulers have and continue to be absolutely horrible i'd be pretty happy to live under a king who does nothing..

[–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 4 weeks ago

bhutan maybe?

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 4 weeks ago

Maybe Juan Carlos, because he abdicated to transition the government from dictatorship to democracy.