[WalterBright]

> nothing like socialism

That happens every time. Socialism gets implemented with high hopes, falls flat on its face, and gets declared to be not really socialism at all.

How many times does it need to fail before one realizes it is never going to work?

[harwoodjp]

If you read the literature around the Bolshevik revolution, Lenin's coup was highly criticized as un-socialist: Luxemburg, Goldman, etc.

Simple litmus test for socialism: do workers manage production completely, through direct democratic processes?

[WalterBright]

The trouble with your definition is the violence necessary to steal the means of production so you can set it up for your workers. A totalitarian government is required to do that. The workers will be severely constrained in what they can do - like set up their own businesses.

You also conflation democracy with freedom. 49% gets subjugated by the other 51%.

Freedom means not being dictated to by the mob.

[harwoodjp]

> violence necessary to steal the means of production

You could argue that private property is theft, necessarily enforced by a repressive state, and reappropriation is justice. The general strike is non-violent (until the police arrive).

> You also conflation democracy with freedom. 49% gets subjugated by the other 51%.

The interesting part about decentralization is that it somewhat relieves this problem. Federation allows for complex arrangements that coordinate towards consensus. So it might not be necessary to subject populations to laws they don't agree with with such broad strokes.

[WalterBright]

> You could argue that private property is theft [...]

You could, but it wouldn't be convincing. It's a bit hard to convince me that things I bought or made I actually stole. Are you going to argue that if I hire someone to build a patio, I actually stole it from him?

[harwoodjp]

Personal property is distinct from private property.