How can a socialist system exist that is not inherently authoritarian? If someone refuses to follow the coordinated economic plan (e.g. contributing to a welfare state) then ultimately the state will have to punish them somehow.
Does it have to punish? At some scale yes maybe. But if the state tried to automate many of the essentials, it might be able to provide basics (food shelter sanitation) at extremely low marginal cost.
Ideally the planned state leaves room for art and culture. Who how and where the state supports creative endeavors is an open question. I'd ask similarly for open source. Ideally the state provides some spare capacity for individual development, that people can establish themselves with & start getting rewarded for.
Overall I see such a starkly different view. Coersion into behaviors & punishment seems low on my list of concerns for non-authoritarian communism.
(to me) every system become authoritarian (or worst) if the full spectrum of alternatives are not made and preserved possible whenever possible..
Putting capital (or socialism, growtn etc) as ultimate goals, and not tools, are on he higway to the disaster, how much of the actual economic/financial global system will exist if at every step in the development the pool of basic rights and true alternatives are respected more...
(to me) progress is (mainly) the creation of alternatives and possibilities.
similarly, someone says progress is actually the speed of the race but not it's direction..
How can a capitalist system exist that is not inherently authoritarian? If someone refuses to follow the rules ... you get the idea. The only difference is that they become the authority instead of being punished by it, but the practical effect on the vast majority is the same. See: Stalin's USSR vs. Putin's Russia. Different in theory, but both authoritarian and both imperialist and both (not coincidentally) very oppressive toward any kind of minority.
Again, this issue is orthogonal to the economic model. Authoritarianism can and does exist in every economic system. The antidote IMO is institutions which define and enforce rules without bestowing permanent favor on any one group. Democracy, federalism, checks and balances, yadda yadda. I even mentioned social democracy already. But don't take my word for it. I suggest you actually study the issue for yourself, not just polemics from one side but the actual history of how these systems have developed and the theories that have been developed with them over centuries, then reach your own conclusions. They might not be the same as mine, but I guarantee they'll be even further from the laissez-faire extremists.
The difference is that with communism a natural human desire is punished, while in capitalism it gets rewarded. I mean a desire to do a good for himself, and only himself, ignoring the needs of the others. Maybe we don't like it as the society, but that's the people's nature.
It seems that it's more effective to leverage this natural desire (as in capitalism) rather that punish it (as in communism). The important part is "natural", i.e., people are born with it, as well as animals, and you cannot prevent it. That's not a minority at all. So the only way for communism is to constantly fight it on a great scale, which is possibly with turning into a authoritarian government.
I think there’s a misunderstanding about what communism is and that “natural human desire”, well what doe it mean, really? I’ve heard this narrative before but it sounds so self-serving.
