Cutting out the conjecture and replying to the only assertion made. Socialism in and of itself doesn’t imply tyranny in the traditional sense of an absolute dictatorship, but it does imply a large and authoritarian government which must use coercive force to seize factors of production and collectivize them.
While socialism in and of itself won’t necessarily lead to tyranny by the literal definition of “socialism” and “tyranny,” historically socialist regimes and revolutions have been precursors to tyranny due to either a power vacuum created which a dictator has filled (Castro in Cuba, Stalin following the death of Lenin in the USSR) or by causing a reactionary movement from diametrically opposed extremists which leads to, you guessed it, a dictator (Franco in Spain, Pinochet in Chile)
oh my god an informed take on the blf wtf
also I do agree with everything you said but this still doesn't answer to how handicappedly these words are being used by Darth
i don't see anything socialist about the bill at all i dont see how he jumped to the conclusion that the bill is socialist
btw: one thing i slightly think is wrong about your answer is the
"large and authoritarian government which must use coercive force to seize factors of production and collectivize them"
part.
one thing that has to be clarified is that in Marxist-Leninism the government would be a dictatorship of the proletariat, so it wouldn't necessarily be a tyranny but there would be one ruling party that could be conceived as authoritarian. but you also have to remember the one party would be governed by democratic centralism, which would mean the party members would vote on proposals, then implement them. And (correct me if im wrong here) the party officials would be elected, so in short it's far from a dictatorship or tyranny, more of a collective government that could be conceived as authoritarian if you believe that capitalists deserve to keep the means of production.
