The problem with Socialism, as I see it, is implementation and motivation. If all the property is public who decides how it gets distributed? Normally a small group of people decide for the rest of the populous. When that happens normally the small group reward themselves extravagant pay and benefits because of all the "hard work" of deciding, and the rest of the populous get very little. Another problem is that if the populous can see that all is distributed evenly (For the little people) then there is no motivation to work. If you get paid no matter what your effort why work. Then rules get implemented to encourage work which takes you away from Socialism's ideal. There was a joke in Soviet Russia "The state pretends to pay me and I pretend to work." If you think that Socialism can be implemented by the populous voting on it then it opens up a huge Pandora's Box. There is a joke here saying "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." Watch this video and see if you agree with it:
Yeah, I'm not a Socialist, so I'm not here to defend it.
I find it interesting that some people think Socialism means "everybody owns everything" though. I don't think any system of government would let someone push you over and take your wagon saying "Now it's mine!" Think about it, how can the taker claim possession, when that possession is based upon everyone's lack of possession? It doesn't make sense.
Do you know which countries are the self-described "Socialists" currently?
I don't know now, but the NAZI party considered themselves Socialist.
Hey @Gamgam, thanks for the continued discussion!
I see people discussing this topic and not using nor citing correct information and it is SO important that we don't let that continue to grow.
The Nazi's were Nationalists aka National Socialists. Not the pure socialists and the difference is important.
For instance, when discussing "Socialism" it is important to remember that there is Socialism, the form of government and then there is Socialism as a guiding principle of governance. As in benefitting society. ie roads, fire departments, police, water and power infrastructure, etc. These are socialist programs and efforts in that they are to benefit society as a whole. Does that make sense?
I agree with you that a purely socialist government is rife with potential for abuse from the "top." However, I've also seen that this is true with every form of government. So it is also important to make the distinction of how a government is supposed to work vs. how the people running the government are making it work.
What do you think about that?
PS: Currently, the self identified "Socialist" nations are China, Vietnam, and Laos. That's it! I only asked you which countries are socialist to counter the idea that socialism means I can take your stuff. It doesn't mean that, look into these countries if you need proof. I'm not saying that these are GOOD governments, I'm just saying, look at and examine a thing as it actually exists, before deciding what it means.
Thanks for reading!
And the USA now is not a pure capitalist country. It really has more in common with socialism.