[aww_dang]

>To find out what percentage of people especially want to live under socialism, we need a situation where people have a reasonably attractive socialist option and also a reasonably attractive nonsocialist one. If it is not precisely the optimal experiment to answer our question, the Israeli experience with kibbutzim comes as close as the real world can.

[_vbnz]

Yeah, but I think kibbutzim is really extreme, and not how even socialists would want to live.

It's a full commune - more like a cult than normal society. So it's quite a strawman in that respect.

[aww_dang]

Socialists are free to develop other arrangements. Is it a problem of innovation?

The distinction here is that even under a hypothetical laissez-faire ideal, socialists would be free to create their own socialist communities of any type. Whereas within a compulsory socialist economy laissez-faire markets are prohibited.

The laissez-faire ideal can accommodate the socialists' individual choices, but the converse is not true.

[cauch]

Well, the comment you are answering to reacted to your comment saying "The conclusion is that most people simply prefer not to".

I agree that the argument made in the article is a strawman argument: no wanting to live in a kibbutz should not be equated to not wanting to live in a socialist society.

I even wonder how many people with a socialist party membership lived in kibbutz at the period of this article, which would demonstrate that this assertion is ridiculous. As this article implies that kibbutz where promoted by the government, I would say that the government was pro-socialism, and if it was an elected government, it would show that a majority of the population is pro-socialism and yet does not want to live in kibbutz. I wonder how many socialist politicians at the time did not even lived in kibbutz, demonstrating the logical flaw of the argument.

But I also disagree with your argument "laissez-faire ideal is an environment where if X does not take off, it means X is a bad idea or is not wanted". It's like saying "you can choose to be a wolf or a sheep, and in this pen, you have a laissez-faire ideal, and we observe that the majority prefer to be wolves, so it's the proof that a sheep pen is a bad idea". No, it means that as soon as there is a laissez-faire that allow wolves eating sheep, it's better to be a wolf even if your ideal was to be a sheep.

[aww_dang]

I agree with the poster in that I wouldn't want to live in a cult like society or a socialist commune. The question is: "Why can socialists not develop a more desirable communal order under purely voluntary conditions?"

Naturally, under market forces those socialists would pursue these more desirable arrangements.

>No, it means that as soon as there is a laissez-faire that allow wolves eating sheep, it's better to be a wolf even if your ideal was to be a sheep.

Most analogies are problematic, but this one is especially so. Voluntary association is equated with "wolves eating sheep" or violence. While violent repression of free exchange is somehow peaceful. From that point I'd expect an invocation of the (widely debunked) labor theory of value, followed by a sloppy generalization claiming free exchange is exploitative in all cases.

The well known analogy of wolves and sheep is, "Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner"

At least far back as Plato, the problem of the tyranny of the majority has been raised. Perhaps this is the more desirable outcome?

[cauch]

> Naturally, under market forces those socialists would pursue these more desirable arrangements.

But why capitalists don't do so too? Why is there still capitalists living in countries with strong socialist policies like in Canada, Europe, ... Sure, those countries are not socialist ideals, but they are certainly not capitalist or libertarian ideals either.

It feels like you are assuming that the default world is "capitalist", and that the socialists have to prove themselves. The reality is that the capitalist ideal is as rare as the socialist one (but when asked about that, some pro-capitalists will come up with reasons or excuses that they will never accept when they are used by pro-socialists. It's not a discussion, they just believe they are smarter when they are not)

> Voluntary association is equated with "wolves eating sheep" or violence.

You did not understand the analogy. When someone does an analogy with bees and flowers in it, it does not mean that they mean that sexual relationships involve literal honey. If my analogy contains wolves and sheep, it does not mean that I mean that society, capitalism or interaction between socialists and capitalists involve literal wolf-vs-sheep predation.

Simply, it is incorrect to say that if you let everyone be free, everyone will be able to reach their ideal. The wolves and sheep thing is not an analogy, it's an counter-example showing that this way of thinking is just very very naive.

As for capitalism, capitalism is different from socialism, it interacts differently, BUT it interacts with socialists. It is stupid to pretend that socialists are somehow living in a bubble and capitalists in another bubble. If a bakery is using the capitalist system to diffuse bread, it affects the bakery next door that is using the socialist system to diffuse bread. And inversely, sometimes it is even the socialist system that is the "wolf" for the capitalism. But the interaction is complex and pretending that it does not impact the choice of individuals that will therefore not choose their ideal but choose what is best in the current environment is ridiculous.