: 1. Because public ownership of the means of production avoids the crises of overproduction and shortage that characterize capitalism.No. Just the opposite. Eveyone seeking to gain utility will utilize these means to the utmost until they're destroyed. This is called the tragedy of the commons and happens when everyone can take from the common pot so that those who take the most and first get the greatest benefit.
: 2. because socialist societies lead to MARKEDLY higher average standards of living for teh people.
Yes. If you had several years, large supercomputers and a generously prescriptive definition of standards of living. Suggestion for ya: it might help to select the countries involved in your study real carefully. Also, see my empiracism comment below.
: 3. Because if we have democracy in the political realm (i.e. control by ALL the people) I don't see why this should not be extended to teh economic realm.
Well, this is a good point. Public Choice Economics shows that public decisions are massively less efficient than private decisions. I think the direction is going the other way: it's called anarcho-capitalism or government through pure price allocation.
: 4. because socialism, by giving people a stake in the future of society, empirically reduces alienation and crime.
Where? A massive study by Lott and Mustard showed that increased private gun ownership decidedly reduced crime rates in a very short time.
As to the 'stake in the future'? That's a nice platitude without even the vaugest pretence of meaning. How bout "oh, father, mother, society, give us a stake in the future of you". Additionally, long-term marriage is probably the other biggest component to reducing neighborhood violence.
But, hey, I though you guys were historicists and not empiricists.
