The other commenter mentioned it, but I'll reinforce it: This is completely unrelated to Socialism. If anything, whatever "Socialism" exists in China is one of the few things to applaud to them. Similarly to "Socialism" practiced in Norway, Finland, Sweden and even Germany to a certain degree.
What you are thinking of is either "Communism" or, in the case of what is being discussed here more like Authoritarism and Oligarchy. Both of those two are definitely present in China, and more and more present in Western countries who push methods of mass survelliance of the population to further advance their goals.
> Communists agree on the ultimate withering away of the state but disagree on the means to this end, reflecting a distinction between a more libertarian approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more vanguardist or communist party-driven approach through the development of a constitutional socialist state.
I think communism is the ultimate utopia and it is unlikely to be ever achieved because people are generally unhappy to have the surplus they produced to be redistributed. Without coercion of a socialist state you won't get redistribution.
At the same time, a government is not an abstract entity. It's just other people who make decision in your place and often get some extra privileges on top because of it - negating the communist goal of achieving a classless society.
That said, I understand your point of view. Socialism is an economic philosophy based around social ownership and doesn't dictate anything about privacy.
That said, the centralisation required to achieve socialism (similar to what we see in our society: you need a taxman to forcefully steal profits from all the citizens and build some roads) implies the creation of a strong state who has all the interests in surveilling citizens.
Socialism and redistribution imply authoritarianism.
All the socialist libertarian and left wing anarchists doctrines can't work unless you have perfect, not greedy, law abiding and honest citizens happy to give away exactly the surplus they produce. Which is to say, it will never work in a normal society, it may work in a small village with like minded people.
This has everything to do with socialism. Socialism is about trading individual liberty, power, and ability to consent for centrally-managed services provided with government authority. This is exactly what's happening here.
The ease and comfort with which this trade is made speaks exactly to the trend GP was referring to.
Strong disagree. Living in a civilization means you have agreed to peacefully coexist with other members, and resolve disputes via due process. From there, whether you can opt out of military service or health insurance varies quite a bit within civilizations. This is where the question of "within your civilization, how free are you?" (vs. how obligated) starts to become relevant.
Your statement is true only because in the present day socialist governments control most of the desirable space.
The Vikings in the middle age moved to Iceland exactly to avoid kings and lords (not that far from our democracy) and they built a decentralised society which lasted 300 years.
They had private courts and private law enforcement. Strategic decisions were happening at the local level with local leaders.
I believe a decentralised society is possible - but there is just no interest in doing so and dismantling the status quo.
First, you need money to get elected in a position where you can do that. Your sponsors will likely want something in return. If you throw away all the power after getting it and create a decentralised society, you won't be able to return any favour or reap any benefit.
You may just as well become the next corrupted leader and get rich from the politics scam.
