Can you point to what examples you are citing of violent socialist legacies?

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro

Vietnam seems to be one of the few examples of a regime that has remained nominally socialist but has avoided the kind of oppression and totalitarianism that these others eventually fell into, though of course Vietnam experienced major economic problems and corruption after the war.

your examples are of failed Communist governments, not Socialist governments. And Communism applied to under developed economies doesn’t work, which is why Marx said that highly evolved economies would have to become Communist in reaction to the evils of Capitalist societies.

If you are going to start comparing socialist governments with capitalist, start with Sweden. Sweden does not have a history of totalitarian violence.

@zenvelo Vietnam is socialist and communist. They’re not mutually exclusive.

But, yes. Venn diagrams. Socialist does not mean communist.

There are multiple types (at least 20) of Socialism, Communism being one type. The fact that there are multiple types always seems to get lost in the shuffle.

Those were all “socialist” by self-titleing only.
Socialism, by definition, puts control and ownership of the means of production and distribution into the hands of the workers themselves.
If you instead put it into the hands of dictators, it is not socialism.
Neither is it “communism”.
Communism is Socialism, plus the abolition of money as a currency, and the dissolution of the State as an entity.
Countries can call themselves whatever they want. That does not make it so.
North Korea calls itself a “republic”. As does China. As did the Soviet Union (that is what the “R” in “USSR” stands for). As did East Germany. They even called themselves “democratic”.
In fact, those countries acted more like giant corporations, with their top-down control of industry. They just planned ahead in 4-year segments, instead of quarters of a year.
Hence them being also called “state capitalist”.

Now, I will say, that Socialism on a large, nation-state level, will almost certainly fail, without external safe-guards.
It is against human nature to live for the sake of others beyond a small tribe level.
Humans are selfish, greedy, power hungry animals.
It is inevitable that sooner or later, an elite cabal will wrestle power from the people, and invest it into themselves.

That is also true of Capitalism and Democracy.
Capitalism, without external restrictions imposed upon it by the State, will invariably devolve into corporate tyranny, controlled by an uncaring oligopoly. (that is the reason why corporations have penetrated the State with their lobbyist tendrils. To defang those restrictions. To maximise corporate control and profits. Because “enough” is never enough)
Democracy, without the separation of powers and constant vigilance, would sooner or later turn into a dictatorship, once the electorate decides to vest all power into a Führer, to solve all their problems. And once people have power, they do not relinquish it voluntarily.
There is a reason why modern democracies have separation of powers. The people that designed the system knew how fragile democracy is. Recent events only reinforce that.

”.... puts control and ownership of the means of production and distribution into the hands of the workers themselves.

Through mutual funds, pension plans, and 401Ks, the United States has transferred ownership of the means of production to workers beyond Marx’s wildest dream.

“Means of production and distribution” does not mean money.
It means factories, machines, tools, raw materials, vehicles, infrastructure.

It proves to me that violence is a bad idea. I wouldn’t say Capitalism is better than Socialism. It’s best to be pragmatic and take the best elements of both systems depending on circumstances.

@zenvelo Sweden is NOT a socialist country. It is actually very pro-capitalism. They WERE a socialist country and it just about destroyed the country.

Democratic socialism?
Seems to work.

Authoritarian socialism?
No thanks.

The issue isn’t with socialism in and of itself. But how that system is brought to power and how it is maintained.

Does the violent history of 20th (and 21st) century America mean it’s time we stopped worrying about useless political labels, and just clean up our own shit??

Hmmmm…

@JLoon GA!

@JLoon I mean sure, go for it. I’m not a jingoistic “Murica” guy. I don’t like socialism much but I’m pretty critical of the U.S., particularly of our imperialistic foreign policy.

@Demosthenes – ...And you’re a good sport.

I realize you asked this in all sincerity. It’s fair question, but my own disdain for almost everything political means I may not be able to give a fair answer.

To me, history is a long & messy record of failed human experiments in religion, science, and politics. We never learn as much from our mistakes as we should.

Some socialist ideas can work. And capitalism isn’t inherently evil. It’s just that understanding that means dropping the phony labeling, blame, and fearmongering that keeps everyone stupid.

30k-45k Americans die every year from lack of health insurance. That’s like a 9/11 attack every month give or take. Our defense sector produces and sells weapons all over the world used to massacre people for profit. We created forever wars in the Middle East. We have companies destroying the environment, filling our waterways with carcinogens, and creating devastating natural disasters that kill thousands. There’s the opiate crisis and other deaths of despair created by big Pharma and our capitalist system. Capitalism is every bit as bloody as the examples you give if not moreso. Nobody should lie the themselves about that fact.

If you are sincere in understanding the arguments in favor of socialism, I encourage you to look into Professor Richard Wolf’s work and lectures. He’s all over YouTube giving lectures and engaging in debates. He makes a strong case for a new kind of socialism that’s more inline with Marx, one that focuses on coops. The idea is that the workers would be the boss and management would answer to them. It’s an interesting concept. Wolf often cites the Mondragon Corporation as exemplifying how a socialist future might work—which incidentally can happily coexist with existing capitalist companies.