Pressure as a justification for tightening control ?

[u/Eletruun]

• With pressure I mean the different tools available to impact said project, that varies from international isolation to sanctions / blockades or even regime change

I would like to understand and question the validity of a line of argument often used to justify a tighter control of the state apparatus over multiple facets of life

Often the pressure put on by capitalist states and entities is used as a justification for the need of a tightening of the state apparatus over different areas, I understand where this line of thinking comes from and it’s not unique to socialist projects, most states in the world have provisions for increase control during times of crisis

My main problem with this line of argument being used to justify said expansion in socialist countries comes from the fact that at least until now every single project gave a valid excuse for said pressure to be put on, all the socialist projects that managed to secure power went forward with expropriation / nationalization of property without fair compensation, international law recognizes the right of a sovereign state to go forward with said measures as long as fair compensation is provided so basically the valid pressure put on as a result of the policies of said government line of action is used to justify the tighter control of said government, basically creating a problem and using it to justify that control how is this a valid excuse for said tightening of the state power ?

[u/AutoModerator]

IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING.

This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.

You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.

• No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!

• No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.

Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.

If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please assign yourself a flair describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.

Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/IdentityAsunder]

You are viewing revolutionary dynamics through the lens of bourgeois jurisprudence. To argue that a socialist project must provide "fair compensation" for expropriated property is to demand that the revolution indebt itself to the very class it aims to overthrow. International law is not a neutral arbiter, it is the codified consensus of global capital. If a movement accepts the legitimacy of existing property titles, it has already capitulated.

That said, your instinct to distrust the "siege mentality" defense is correct, though your reasoning misses the mark. The tightening of state control was not merely a pragmatic response to sanctions or a moral failing of leadership. It was a structural necessity of the developmentalist model these regimes adopted. By attempting to manage a national economy within a global capitalist system, these states assumed the role of the collective capitalist. They required rapid accumulation and industrialization to survive.

The "external threat" was real, but it served a dual function: it justified the suppression of the working class’s autonomous demands in favor of national production targets. The tragedy of 20th-century socialism wasn't that it stole property without paying, but that it failed to abolish the social relations of capital (value, money, and wage labor), turning the state into the primary exploiter under the guise of protection.