It's not possible to achieve socialism without authoritarianism because that's the only way to enforce social ownership of the means of production against private ownership...
Edit:
There is no meaningul difference between socialism and communism, especially on this aspect (ownership of means of production), which is key to conclude that the system must be authoritarian.
"According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death"" [1]
The 'distinction' was created by Lenin and the Bolcheviks for political purposes.
"The distinction between communism and socialism became salient in 1918 after the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the All-Russian Communist Party, interpreting communism specifically to mean socialists who supported the politics and theories of Bolshevism, Leninism and later that of Marxism–Leninism,[53] although communist parties continued to describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism." [1]
In Europe, most socialist parties have evolved to simply seek to implement socialist-inspired ideas within a capitalist society and perhaps state capitalism, whereas communist parties stayed on Lenin's line and seek to overthrow the system to set up a fully socialist society.
What is wrong about the means of production being under social ownership in socialism? Yes, socialism allows also some private property and there is spectrum of how much it is a planned economy but social ownership of the means of production is a central component of socialism.
Socialism does not require an authoritarian state, period. It's much larger than that, and it is a gradient. Just like "not being socialist" does not mean that you are libertarian: you can be a moderate liberal.
For instance, saying that public transportation should be public (i.e. belong to the state) does not mean that the state is authoritarian. You can have more moderate forms of socialism.
I find it interesting that the Wikipedia articles are pretty different in different languages. In French it is much more moderate than in English, for instance: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialisme.
> For instance, saying that public transportation should be public (i.e. belong to the state) does not mean that the state is authoritarian.
Sure, but that's not socialism. That's state capitalism at most.
There is not gradient. If society is socialist then as per definition and as explained there must be authoritarianism to suppress any private initiative.
The article in French says the same thing as I wrote before: "socialist parties" are no longer socialist:
"Le socialisme démocratique, c'est-à-dire un socialisme converti à la démocratie libérale et respectueux du jeu parlementaire, représente aujourd'hui la tendance majoritaire des partis socialistes, qui n'envisagent plus la rupture avec l'économie de marché."
If they no longer want to get rid of the market economy and private ownership then they are no longer socialist at all! Socialism has demonstrably failed so they have been trying to adapt while keeping the name...
> There is not gradient. If society is socialist then as per definition and as explained there must be authoritarianism to suppress any private initiative.
This logic works both ways. There is authoritarianism to enforce private ownership in capitalism. The police is a tool of the capitalist class, designed to suppress any protest against the capitalist system. It even extends internationally, to Imperialism. One only needs to think of banana republics, or more recently, Coca Cola murdering union leaders.
> The article in French says the same thing as I wrote before: "socialist parties" are no longer socialist:
That's not what the sentence you quoted says. Do you speak french? Just to know (respectfully) if we need to debate the meaning of that sentence, or if I need to translate it for you.
That sentence precisely means that there is a gradient.
I am French, with an understanding of what words actually mean. This article is highly misleading, to be polite. Socialism that has converted to liberal democracy and no longer seeks to replace the market economy is simply not socialism by definition, it's basically social democracy. That's what I have been writing and repeating: It's not because it's called "socialist party" that it is socialist, and that has been the case for decades. Maybe you're too young to grasp this fully.
You think that it's not socialism anymore (which is fair, "socialisme democratique" is not "socialism" anymore), and I say that socialism has evolved ("socialisme democratique" is an evolution of socialism that works in democracies). In the end it's just a difference in the definition.
The fact remains that the US don't really have the equivalent of "Parti Socialiste": the democrats would be on the right wing in France, right?
That wasn't really my point but rather that social ownership of the means of production is a defining characteristic of socialism (as it was conceived in opposition to capitalism). Maybe there is a voluntary way to it but I don't think that has happened anywhere on a large scale so far.
These days there is a tendency to use socialism and practical present-day social democracy rather interchangeably, but I think that is problematic (and the latter doesn't really aim for socialism anymore, I'd say).
Edit:
There is no meaningul difference between socialism and communism, especially on this aspect (ownership of means of production), which is key to conclude that the system must be authoritarian.
"According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death"" [1]
The 'distinction' was created by Lenin and the Bolcheviks for political purposes.
"The distinction between communism and socialism became salient in 1918 after the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the All-Russian Communist Party, interpreting communism specifically to mean socialists who supported the politics and theories of Bolshevism, Leninism and later that of Marxism–Leninism,[53] although communist parties continued to describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism." [1]
In Europe, most socialist parties have evolved to simply seek to implement socialist-inspired ideas within a capitalist society and perhaps state capitalism, whereas communist parties stayed on Lenin's line and seek to overthrow the system to set up a fully socialist society.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism