Authoritarian socialism

Authoritarian socialism, or socialism from above,^[1] 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 the counter-revolution or as a means to socialist ends. Several countries, most notably the Soviet Union, China and their allies, have been described by journalists and scholars as authoritarian socialist states.^[2]^[3]^[4]

Contrasted to democratic, anti-statist and libertarian forms of socialism, authoritarian socialism encompasses some forms of African,^[5]^[6] Arab^[7] and Latin American socialism.^[8] Although considered an authoritarian or illiberal form of state socialism, often referred to and conflated as socialism by critics and argued as a form of state capitalism by left-wing critics, those states were ideologically Marxist–Leninist and declared themselves to be workers' and peasants' or people's democracies.^[9] Academics, political commentators and other scholars tend to distinguish between authoritarian socialist and democratic socialist states, with the first representing the Soviet Bloc and the latter representing Western Bloc countries which have been democratically governed by socialist parties such as Britain, France, Sweden and Western social-democracies in general, among others.^[10]

While originating with the utopian socialism advocated by Edward Bellamy^[11] and identified by Hal Draper as a socialism from above,^[1] it has been overwhelmingly associated with the Soviet model and contrasted or compared to authoritarian capitalism.^[12] Authoritarian socialism has been criticised by the left and right both theoretically and in practice.^[13]

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Two Souls was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Huntington 1970.
^ Löwy 1986, p. 264.
^ Amandae 2003.
^ Cite error: The named reference Mushkat was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Gregor was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Regimes and Resistance was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference CSMecuador was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Nation, R. Craig (1992). Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991. Cornell University Press. pp. 85–6. ISBN 9780801480072. Retrieved 19 December 2014.
^ Barrett (1978): "If we were to extend the definition of socialism to include Labor Britain or socialist Sweden, there would be no difficulty in refuting the connection between capitalism and democracy."; Heilbroner et al. (1991); Kendall (2011), pp. 125–127: "Sweden, Great Britain, and France have mixed economies, sometimes referred to as democratic socialism—an economic and political system that combines private ownership of some of the means of production, governmental distribution of some essential goods and services, and free elections. For example, government ownership in Sweden is limited primarily to railroads, mineral resources, a public bank, and liquor and tobacco operations."; Li (2015), pp. 60–69: "The scholars in the camp of democratic socialism believe that China should draw on the Sweden experience, which is suitable not only for the West but also for China. In post-Mao China, the Chinese intellectuals are confronted with a variety of models. The liberals favour the American model and share the view that the Soviet model has become archaic and should be abandoned. Meanwhile, democratic socialism in Sweden provided an alternative model. Its sustained economic development and extensive welfare programs fascinated many. Numerous scholars within the democratic socialist camp argue that China should model itself politically and economically on Sweden, which is viewed as more genuinely socialist than China. There is a growing consensus among them that in the Nordic countries the welfare state has been extraordinarily successful in eliminating poverty."
^ Cite error: The named reference Lipow was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Berger (1997), pp. 853–854; Lingle, Owens & Rowley (1998); Budhwar (2004), p. 221; Bhasin (2007), pp. 39–50
^ Barrett 1978.

[Two_Souls-1] Cite error: The named reference Two Souls was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[FOOTNOTEHuntington1970-2] Huntington 1970.

[FOOTNOTELöwy1986264-3] Löwy 1986, p. 264.

[FOOTNOTEAmandae2003-4] Amandae 2003.

[Mushkat-5] Cite error: The named reference Mushkat was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Gregor-6] Cite error: The named reference Gregor was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Regimes_and_Resistance-7] Cite error: The named reference Regimes and Resistance was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[CSMecuador-8] Cite error: The named reference CSMecuador was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Nation_1992-9] Nation, R. Craig (1992). Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991. Cornell University Press. pp. 85–6. ISBN 9780801480072. Retrieved 19 December 2014.

[10] Barrett (1978): "If we were to extend the definition of socialism to include Labor Britain or socialist Sweden, there would be no difficulty in refuting the connection between capitalism and democracy."; Heilbroner et al. (1991); Kendall (2011), pp. 125–127: "Sweden, Great Britain, and France have mixed economies, sometimes referred to as democratic socialism—an economic and political system that combines private ownership of some of the means of production, governmental distribution of some essential goods and services, and free elections. For example, government ownership in Sweden is limited primarily to railroads, mineral resources, a public bank, and liquor and tobacco operations."; Li (2015), pp. 60–69: "The scholars in the camp of democratic socialism believe that China should draw on the Sweden experience, which is suitable not only for the West but also for China. In post-Mao China, the Chinese intellectuals are confronted with a variety of models. The liberals favour the American model and share the view that the Soviet model has become archaic and should be abandoned. Meanwhile, democratic socialism in Sweden provided an alternative model. Its sustained economic development and extensive welfare programs fascinated many. Numerous scholars within the democratic socialist camp argue that China should model itself politically and economically on Sweden, which is viewed as more genuinely socialist than China. There is a growing consensus among them that in the Nordic countries the welfare state has been extraordinarily successful in eliminating poverty."

[Lipow-11] Cite error: The named reference Lipow was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[12] Berger (1997), pp. 853–854; Lingle, Owens & Rowley (1998); Budhwar (2004), p. 221; Bhasin (2007), pp. 39–50

[FOOTNOTEBarrett1978-13] Barrett 1978.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]