We shouldn't always point at obviously dysfunctional examples when we look at problems in our society. There is no natural law that things will always end up like Venezuela or the Soviet Union when we change things.
Or North Korea, or Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or...
Until all the necessities are 100% automated there are only two options to motivate people to produce those necessities: through force, or through self-interest. The list above is where they tried force. Maybe it's not a natural law that such a system has so far always failed, but it's not a mystery either.
Why does it have to be either socialism or capitalism?
What if every employee became a shareholder and reaped rewards for such, making companies employee owned and 'SHARING' everything.. ---it's a more privatized way of running socialism and imho works better...
I do think gov't should cover healthcare/education -- maybe require service in military, or local community initiatives for those who are pacifists/not fit enough to serve.
Employee owned companies / Worker Co-ops I think are the wave of the future, and the next big economic shift. I'm wanting to start a web dev / growth hacking company built around that principle, where even the janitor would be an employee-owner (that's an example, janitorial would probably be contracted out).
Good examples are Winco foods -- where some cashiers who started with them in the 80s/90s are worth > $1 million dollars and are still working in-store: i.e. haven't necessarily moved to any sort of 'exec' position. They've just received shares/stock to raise up their living standards substantially.
> What if every employee became a shareholder and reaped rewards for such, making companies employee owned and 'SHARING' everything.. ---it's a more privatized way of running socialism and imho works better...
There is nothing stopping this from happening. You can start such a company now. Heck, you can start a communist commune within a free market system. It doesn't happen much because it doesn't work well enough. The classic corporate structure is far more common because it works.
Even if you took all the shares from the shareholders of an existing company and gave them to the employees you'd revert to inequality soon enough. How much are the new cashiers at Winco foods worth? How many of the old Winco foods employees are still rich? How many of the ones who got rich and stayed rich are still working as a cashier? How big is Winco foods compared to Walmart? Most people who have a million dollars don't want to work as a cashier, a few counterexamples notwithstanding. The basic principle of making employees invested in the success of the company is a good one, but the government shouldn't force that model. Let businesses apply that model where they think it works. Google gives stock to employees, great! Company X doesn't, also great.
> I do think gov't should cover healthcare/education
I agree, the government should finance this for people who can't afford it, but the government should not be running the hospitals or the schools for the same reason that the government should finance food for people who can't afford it, but they shouldn't run the supermarket.
> -- maybe require service in military, or local community initiatives for those who are pacifists/not fit enough to serve.
Why? The all-volunteer military works well. Compensate people for the job instead of forcing them to do it.
You could also take a look at Europe or the US in the 50s. More income distribution than the current state doesn't mean that Stalin's successors will take over immediately.
Europe or the US in the 50s didn't guarantee the necessities for people who choose not to work either. I'm not even necessarily opposed to flattening the income distribution by government intervention, but guaranteeing all the necessities is a radical change. Let's try it on a small scale first.
Give one example of a communist country that didn't turn totalitarian. Capitalism doesn't imply democracy, but capitalist dictatorships do tend to gravitate in that direction, e.g. Chile.
My point was that making changes to the current system doesn't necessarily mean communism. Capitalism or market economies can have many different shapes without becoming dictatorships.
Until all the necessities are 100% automated there are only two options to motivate people to produce those necessities: through force, or through self-interest. The list above is where they tried force. Maybe it's not a natural law that such a system has so far always failed, but it's not a mystery either.