: Seriously, socialism and communism have failed miserably in every country that has ever tried either one of them. Why then should anyone want this form of government? I would be interested in what you mean by failed, I don't really know what way you would calculate success, I mean the revolution in Cuba increased lieracy a hundred fold elsewhere it did likewise and brought about other improvements like healthservices, in some instances it was nothing more than the hope for something different. I mean is it a qualitative or quantitative measure your going by?
Herbert Spencer, the lassiz faire capitalist, in reponse to Socialists in his era said that the system was fine and it was the individuals fault he was in poverty and the greedy individuals fault that an era of wealth and the goodlife for all didnt result from market competition, things that couldnt be reformed or changed, years later Castro, the cuban dictator, in a speech insisted that it wasnt Socialism or Communism that was out of sorts, it was the individuals fault he was in prison, the greedy individuals fault that an era of prosperity and solidarity didnt result from public planning, things that couldnt be reformed or changed. So you have the exact same argument and justification on either side.
People generally dont want a form of government or a formula just the promise of change and alternative when they decide socialism and the common good would be better than the eliteism and perpetual mistakes, with high human costs, inherent in Capitalism, the privately owned command economy.
:All of Marx's concepts go against human nature and appeal only to the lazy and un-productive.
I'm not sure about that, maybe I dont know enough about Marx being just a socialist not a marxist (yes it happens), but if your suggesting that solidarity and unselfish behaviour is against human nature I'd suggest you consider the fully functioning family as a model of solidarity or the drinking partners or the church prayer group or just plain frienships. I wouldnt suggest that everyone can be friends with everyone at any one time but as a general rule it suits.
Then take the example from the natural world is it the fitest that survive or the natural collectivists, I mean mutualists, do you see singlar animals living anywhere? No they live in packs, prides or herds.
As for lazy I'd read the "economic horror" or "The New Unemployed" what if there isnt enough jobs to go round? Am I lazy because I dont want to stack shelves all my life or work in a McDonalds all my life with a university degree and higher qualifications but cant find a job? Besides it isnt in anyones interests to kill themselves mentally or physically labouring, unless they really enjoy it, when the task coudl be done with the minimum time and effort leaving you free to seek other recreation or praise God or whatever you please.
:Socialist countries limit freedom more than any other, have less and are the unhappiest. Why would anyone want this?
I dont think your prejudiced like Frenchy, maybe you just dont know, Sweden has a Socialistic economy, so do other european nations, they dont find their freedom limited, maybe their freedom to set up off shore accounts to avoid social responsiblities like taxation is restricted, infact they find that with increased wages and reduced working hours they have more time to themselves and more options when considering spending. That's more freedom not less.
None.
