The problem with these kinds of questions/discussions is that you need to define what you mean by "socialism" to begin with. Socialism is a tricky term because not even self-proclaimed socialists necessarily agree on what it means. It's a theory of an economical system, it's a political movement, it's an ideology, & it's not clearly & definitively separated from terms like "social democracy," "social liberalism," or even "communism." What all these terms share are a critique of capitalism & a lack of belief in the market as the solution to problems in society, but "socialism" is still such an incredibly varied field of philosophy/economics that it has run the gamut from terrifying, one-party, genocidal dictatorships to parliamentary republics that have created the most prosperous societies on Earth.
I mean socialism as in the type that's close to communism.
So, then the question that you obviously should've asked was "Is
Communism a good thing?" Gotcha.
The fundamentals of communism ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs") can work in small, closed groups in which everybody is on the same page & is willing to dive into the process. The problem with communism is that it requires people to ignore certain innate human desires, such as greed, power, &, on the opposite side of the spectrum, laziness.
Now, it's certainly possible to find, say, 30 or so people that are all willing to forego greediness & a search for power & work together on a community-owned commune. But the system breaks down quickly when one or more people stop putting in the work required of their ability, or even if there's a perception by the other community members that someone isn't putting in their work. Resentment will grow &, taken far enough, break down the goodwill, & the community will disband. This was common with a number of American communes in the '60s & '70s. They'd last for some number of years & then they'd fall apart.
So, on a small scale, communism can work. Most families are small-scale "communist" enterprises, for example, in which you (typically) forego greed & recognition of your individual efforts for the benefit of the group. On a large scale, though, it's simply impossible to expect a society to have all members forego so many basic human instincts in order to prevent the breakdown, so the system must be enforced with an iron fist. But how can you enforce something without power? So now you have, at least, a 2-tiered system: the enforcers & their subjects. Now, no enforcer wants to become a subject, so the methods of enforcement, in time, become more about clinging to power rather than making decisions that are good for the people as a whole. This is why, historically, in practice, communist societies cause societal famine, mass killings, & a halt to innovation.
Poll
