Why Does Socialism Always Fail?

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money. – Margaret Thatcher
http://www.redstate.com/repair_man_...-sanders-margaret-thatcher-problem-socialism/

 

In reality you don't.

 

Wrong many do it will simply not be tolerated by statists

- - - Updated - - -

Of course you do.

She was irrefutably correct

 

So the will of the people should not be honored?

When will the money run out for the NHS? Going on 70 years now. LOL

 

With this definition, I want to offer Alaska as a successful definition of socialist via The Alaska Permanent Fund.

 

When the people who are taxed for it run out.

The people have no will

 

The Chinese government has been relinquishing socialized control of the economy sector by sector over the past 40 years. In many respects their markets are more free by a long shot, especially with respect to regulatory control, than those of the US. I don't see near as much difference between the US and western Europe.

 

It hasn't 'always' failed; that's clearly an exaggeration.

The reality is that there are socialistic nations today, that have done fine.

 

Alaska does not own the means of production of those who live there. The state merely got into the oil business along side other competitors.

When I say ownership of the means of production, I mean all the means of production. I'd call lesser degrees of that a mixed economy.

 

In reality you do, look at the national debt. Soon we will only be able to service the interest, what happens then?

 

China is still plenty socialized. You should visit it sometime. Most of western Europe and Canada has some version of nationalized healthcare which, as I see it, is getting pretty close to socialism when it is layered over social security, childbirth leave for men, welfare, etc.

 

I've noticed that you have great trouble writing sentences.

 

Alright.

If you meant *all* the means of production, then I'm not aware of any place that was truly socialist. No even the places you listed in the OP will fit your own definition of socialism as they all allowed some private ownership of production.

 

That's state capitalism.
Socialism is worker control and management of the means of production.

 

Most people call it "socialism".

Whenever you use the term, that's what I'll read.

I still don't see you defending it as justifiable, practical, or possible.

What gives you the right to decide how all resources should be distributed, owned, and managed?

 

We are not even remotely close to the point where we can only services the interest. That is laughable

- - - Updated - - -

In this country the people would disagree with you. If youi would like to form a country where the will of the people are not heard please feel free to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

The will of the people have that right.

 

What means of production are privately owned in, say, North Korea?

Its constitution explicitly says that all resources and means of production and distribution are to be owned and controlled by the state.

 

Only individuals would disagree with me the people have no voice or mind

 

Again you can not get enough individuals to agree with you to agree to allow your system to happen. We still have elections in this country....unless you would like to do away with that?

 

According to you. If a majority decides to execute all dissenters, you leave yourself no room to complain.

 

Sure I can it only takes two.

Elections are not meant to impose the will of some on others only to choose leaders

 

I said quite clearly that we operate under the framework of the constitution. Did you miss that?

- - - Updated - - -

And what do those leaders do....enact the will of the people.

 

No they do not as the people have no will

 

Yes they do

 

No they do not.

By definition will is the product of the human mind which collectives, whether that is the people or the state or the public or society or whatever, do not have