[makotech222]

Yes, because a socialist enterprise can exist in a system where the ultra-wealthy capitalist can

1. Buy out the company and outsource everything 2. Buy out the politicians and make laws against them 3. Use their extreme wealth to sabotage their business. 4. In the case of other nations, embargo them and assassinate their leaders, stoke pro-capitalist revolutions.

Examples: See Cuba, USSR, entirety of South America, Vietnam, etc.

[ryanwaggoner]

Ah...I see now. Socialism has failed miserably everywhere it’s been tried, but that’s not socialism’s fault! It’s capitalism’s fault! The big bad capitalists ruined it by meddling! If only socialists could be left alone, they’d finally be able to create paradise.

I’m straw-manning here, but only a bit. Not only is this cliche defense of socialism not logical or accurate, it’s impractical.

So you need a world without adversaries or people with entrenched power before you can create your utopia?

Good luck with that.

[makotech222]

Liberalism went through the same period. Ever hear of the french revolution? Then the Napoleonic wars?

The same is and will happen with socialism. The status quo benefits a select few people (Monarchy, at the time), who will do their damndest to keep it that way. Eventually, enough people will rise up and make change happen.

[ryanwaggoner]

You may be right about things eventually changing, but I think it'll be due to post-scarcity due to technological progress, not because people will rise up.

What you're definitely wrong about is that the current status quo benefits a select few. It's not equally distributed (although neither would socialism be), but almost everyone on earth today is much better off today than they would have been without capitalism, liberalism, etc.

But I'm tired of providing examples of why, especially when the alternative being offered is a theoretical utopia that's basically a more extreme version of some of the most cruel and deadly regimes earth has ever known.