You're taking a look at countries that have implemented 'socialism' and ended up with what amounts to dictatorships. Do you really think that Communism as envisioned by Karl Marx included someone like Stalin, or the corrupt officials that inhabited governments in the Eastern Bloc?
For all of the rhetoric that the far-right sling around in the US about the evils of Socialism, even they have Socialist policies. The government regulates, picks winners, keeps companies afloat that are 'too big to fail,' Social Security and other welfare programs, etc.
Don't confuse situations where neighbors reports other neighbors who then 'disappear' as having anything to do with Communism or Socialism (or than that they have historically resided together).
Do you think that people are automata, and any attempt to build a system with X attributes necesarrily also has Y attributes, in the automatic way that eating only sugar leads to diabetes?
Just because there was an attempt to build X (socialism for example), under specific circumstances (e.g less technologically and politically advanced countries such as Russia, Eastern Europe and Asia), under specific forces (20th century colonialism, WWII, cold war etc), and with specific people at the helm influencing things all around (Stalin and Mao basically), doesn't mean any attempt to build X in different circumstance will end up the same.
Putting everything in one communal basket and expecting people to behave is a recipe for disaster. Don't make a system which works only when people do not make mistakes or are only driven by their purest feelings.
[Citation needed]
Because, you know, that's the analogous response to banning all socialism and social-democracy forever just because the Soviet Union didn't turn out well.
tl;dr don't grant it moral credit.
How do you square that with what you've written?
It feels strange to me to call social welfare anything other than socialism. Maybe it's just a case of French socialisme and English socialism being false friends.
Heck, U S S R.
I think that the best people to ask are those that lived under "socialist" regimes (I'm one of them). If I ask almost anybody I know that lived under a socialist regime, they'll probably say the same.
Maybe theoretically socialism is a different thing, but practically it really isn't for a lot of people.
Today increased budget for food stamps, tomorrow the world, that sort of thing.
Only if you use the american dictionary.
Yep. I would even include America in that, just to a slightly lesser extent.
> That some of the countries that enjoy the highest quality of life and happiness are socialist?
Well, who are you comparing to? There aren't really any or many relatively free countries (and there never have been more than 1 or 2 at a time in all of history).
It's not true if you compare it to 19th century America in terms of happiness, nor modern-day Singapore in terms of quality of life.
(In fact, a pet has a better quality of life than a typical American, since they have better access to healthcare.)
> How do you square that with what you've written?
I hope I've answered your question.
Capitalism makes every other person at worst a neutral non-threat and at best a potential trading partner. Resources are plentiful. People feel benevolent towards one another.
This is not an apology for America; America is only semi-capitalist. You can see Americans getting meaner over time as the country shifts more in the socialist direction. There is less everday that makes America distinct from Europe.