I pretty regularly hear that Stalin or Ho or Tito’s “authoritarianism”, was regrettably necessary in order to achieve economic development, which is just the same argument that “socialism needs killing fields”
That’s not how I’d interpret it (at least not when put like that). To me that argument reads more like “economic development in the USSR/Vietnam/Yugoslavia required killing fields”, which is very different to “socialism needs killing fields”.
That’s not how I’d interpret it (at least not when put like that). To me that argument reads more like “economic development in the USSR/Vietnam/Yugoslavia required killing fields”, which is very different to “socialism needs killing fields”.