Why doesnt socialism work? gf is sttrongly socialist...

you can just smell the no argument leftypol virgin behind this post

The problem is that class consciousness among the industrial working class is not a thing. There's a reason why communist revolutions happened in agrarian China and Russia instead of industrialized Germany like it was supposed to. The people needed an "intellectual vanguard" to lead them and that causes all sorts of problems.

The reason why socialism/communism of a more anarchist bent doesn't work is the problem of security, coordination, and organization. Anarchist Catalonia and Free Ukraine got fucked by, ironically, people who also called themselves communists.

Well put.
And as a card-carrying capitalist, I can't really find a strong argument against it and I find this upsetting.

My only lead is that socialism has a fundamental flaw in it that allows it to so easily give way to these bigger more violent groups.

1. The economics of socialism (arguably its core aspects), simply do not work and are too restrictive
1.1. These poor economics lead to poverty, crime, suffering, and rebellion
2. Further, the ideology is completely contrary and counter to human nature, private property is a concept going back to the dawn of humanity
2.1 This means it is impossible to maintain unless enforced militarily
3. Therefore, in practice, this enforcement means the government must be an undemocratic, tyrannical dictatorship to maintain power
3.1 This leads to widespread oppression, lack of freedom, towards the people the Socialist regime is supposed to before

So you can see that it doesn't work on three different levels, but people keep believing in it and trying to enforce it.

>no shit, they're little guys getting overtaken by bigger guys

What I mean is, something inherent to their ideology that actually feeds their enemies, and makes them big and powerful.

Like a lack of balance between government branches, or centralization.
Like Articles of Confederation vs. Constitution in the US.

Mises' problem of calculation in a socialist economy, along with basic price theory, should convince most people that centrally planned economies are a pipe dream.
Then, all you have to do is point out that there's no way you can enforce most Socialist demands for economic organization without central planning, and the whole thing comes tumbling down.

More

4. This often proves too much to handle for the often poor socialist regimes in undeveloped countries
4.1 Popular discontent combined with political divisions and infighting, and often criminal organisations, leads to a collapse of the regime
4.2 Notice how the only socialist nations to have ever lasted for decent time are the ones who already had wealthy, power and military support before going full socialist, Russia and China.

>Mises

Stopped reading here.

Because it's a flawed system based on feelings.

Aside from that retardation then, what is your refutation for Mises's problem of calculation?

He was wrong about a lot of things, but his critique of planned economies in Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth still hasn't been answered adequately.

Quote on why central economic planning is idiotic, just because I have it handy:

"[C]ompetition, by bringing into operation the law of value of commodity production in a society of producers who exchange their commodities, precisely thereby brings about the only organisation and arrangement of social production which is possible in the circumstances. Only through the undervaluation or overvaluation of products is it forcibly brought home to the individual commodity producers what society requires or does not require and in what amounts. But it is precisely this sole regulator that the utopia advocated by Rodbertus among others wishes to abolish. And if we then ask what guarantee we have that necessary quantity and not more of each product will be produced, that we shall not go hungry in regard to corn and meat while we are choked in beet sugar and drowned in potato spirit, that we shall not lack trousers to cover our nakedness while trouser buttons flood us by the million – Rodbertus triumphantly shows us his splendid calculation, according to which the correct certificate has been handed out for every superfluous pound of sugar, for every unsold barrel of spirit, for every unusable trouser button, a calculation which “works out” exactly, and according to which “all claims will be satisfied and the liquidation correctly brought about.” And anyone who does not believe this can apply to governmental chief revenue office accountant X in Pomerania who has checked the calculation and found it correct, and who, as one who has never yet been caught lacking with the accounts, is thoroughly trustworthy."

I wonder what brutal capitalist theorist could have so brutally BTFO'd modern socialists... Oh, wait. It was Engels. In 1846.

Chavez died in 2013. To the best of my knowledge, Venezuela didn't start going to hell until after that. So I don't see how you can blame the problems on him.

>system completely implodes the moment dear leader dies

lol

Hmmm, sounds like every sociologist ever.

Yeah, strong leaders dying and leaving behind ineffective muppets never fucked up any country!

>gf is strongly socialist
women and nu-males make the worst kind of socialists

>Allende
>not marxist
historical revisionism

>2.1 This means it is impossible to maintain unless enforced militarily
The same is true of private property, it's why we have laws against theft and so on. Without those laws, there would be very little to prevent people from taking others' property. There wouldn't be any "property rights" beyond what one can personally defend with force. Which for the upper classes of modern capitalist society, tends to be a relatively small fraction compared to the total property they legally own under currently laws. The fact that laws are needed to enforce it indicates that it is not human nature. Human nature is basically to take what you want need, as long as you can get away with it, maybe give some to people you care about, or to random strangers if you want to make yourself feel like a good person, but that's it. Acceptance of property ownership as a universal right is certainly not human nature, it's just what works decently well for most capitalist societies.

>based on feelings
So is capitalism, or at least its foundations. Sure, there are those who argue in favor of capitalism as it leads to a higher standard of living, but the idea of exclusive property ownership being a universal right (or any conception of "universal rights", really) is based on feelings. Most capitalists will say that violating an individual's property rights is wrong, even if doing so is known to improve the economy and standard of living. Something being based on feelings isn't inherently a bad thing, it's ultimately about finding a good balance.

I think you've gouged to much burger propaganda if you think socialism in general "don't work"

Most political systems aren't sufficiently sturdy to survive bad leadership without negative consequences. And it wasn't "the moment dear leader dies", it was several years.

marxist != socialist

What's weird to me is that Socialism keeps failing yet people shit on Capitalism all the time. Makes no since to me. I have a cousin that went to UCLA and he told me how they have a Socialism club. UCLA is expensive as fuck to go to as it is.

Here's your (You)

I have bad news user
Your gf is retarded, accept it and move on.

Theft is also part of human nature alongside private property. An owners duty to his own property is to protect and defend it, which is why it's important that arms ownership is legal. The police also exist because the state is very large and not everyone can defend themselves, but the crucial difference is that someone owns their own property and defends it from other citizens, it is not the same the government deciding that everyone collectively owns everything, this has never been the case.

Acceptance of property ownership is clearly human nature, because you couldn't even have theft if you did not accept this natural right, because then it would not be theft it would be sharing or borrowing, it is only theft because the thief accepts, naturally, that the object is not his. So if theft is natural, then so is private propety

Not a argument my dude

In 2007 his government had to debase the original bolívar to enforce the strong bolívar (bolívar fuerte) instead

And yes, when a country exports oil only because it's the only venture the state can afford to not to fail to and in turn it is because oil hovers around 90 - 100 USD... it only shows its huge incompetence

Allende was the candidate for the communist party

Venezuela's problems aren't because Chavez died, it was because it was a one-commodity economy and oil priced plummeted due to advances in technology.

This, Maduro is the one that fucked up.

Which is to be expected if you let a literal bus driver run a country

>private property is a concept going back to the dawn of humanity
This is bullshit pseudo history.
>This means it is impossible to maintain unless enforced militarily
Like any state system?
>Therefore, in practice, this enforcement means the government must be an undemocratic, tyrannical dictatorship to maintain power
Because democracies can't and don't exist. Right.

>these trips are being ignored.

It had problems before 2013, but yes, it got really bad after he died.

Socialism can only work upon the transcendence of the human mind. The majority of humans view such radical ideologies through their capitalist, nationalist, statist perspectives. We may think we understand socialism, but we won't until the natural rising complexity of human history allows us to become truly enlightened and able to self-sustain a society. ALSO, socialism can't work if there's a government.

>This is bullshit pseudo history.
It is not, you think everyone in a tribe shared everything? We see today in primitive peoples that they still own their possessions personally, or one hut is their families and not shared with another.
>Like any state system?
The majority of states enforce law through the police via the law, not through the military. Even when riots occur in the western world its still the police enforcing law, not the military enforcing rule.
>Because democracies can't and don't exist. Right.
Socialist democracies can't and don't exist, and never have.

There was no way Venezuela would have unscathed by the oil slump

>It is not, you think everyone in a tribe shared everything? We see today in primitive peoples that they still own their possessions personally, or one hut is their families and not shared with another.
Not true. In tribal societies people share most things they have. People rely on each other to survive.
>The majority of states enforce law through the police via the law, not through the military. Even when riots occur in the western world its still the police enforcing law, not the military enforcing rule.
Have you not heard of the gendarmerie, carabinieri, or other military branches tasked with overseeing civilian peace in places like France or Italy? Did you not know that even East Germany dealt with most crimes through the use of their police and not their military (other than at the wall)?
>Socialist democracies can't and don't exist, and never have.
Let me guess, Allende's Chile, Rojava, or the many, many democratic socialists elected to local US positions in the early 20th century don't count?

*would have been

>it is not the same the government deciding that everyone collectively owns everything
AFAIK, most socialists don't intend to have the MoP collectively owned by the entire population, the main thing they want (and the defining characteristic of socialism) is the MoP be owned by the people who use it. So you couldn't for example have owners relaxing at home or going on vacation all the time and hiring other people to manage their factories.

That doesn't even make sense. Even without private property rights, people would still desire things. It's not "theft" that's human nature, it's the desire to obtain. Once property rights are accepted, THEN the desire to obtain becomes a desire for theft. But property rights are contrary to human nature because humans would not respect them if they had the option not to.

>Not true. In tribal societies people share most things they have. People rely on each other to survive.
And yet they still have private property and ownership, giving someone your spear does not mean you do not own it, you lend it.
>Have you not heard of the gendarmerie, carabinieri, or other military branches tasked with overseeing civilian peace in places like France or Italy? Did you not know that even East Germany dealt with most crimes through the use of their police and not their military (other than at the wall)?
East Germany, a socialist state, thanks genius.
>Let me guess, Allende's Chile, Rojava, or the many, many democratic socialists elected to local US positions in the early 20th century don't count?
All collapsed because they didn't work. Just because they were implemented for a short while before collapsing doesn't prove you right, it only proves you wrong.

*socialist

>It is not, you think everyone in a tribe shared everything? We see today in primitive peoples that they still own their possessions personally, or one hut is their families and not shared with another.
What are the means of production in such society?

>The majority of states enforce law through the police via the law, not through the military. Even when riots occur in the western world its still the police enforcing law, not the military enforcing rule.
There's no fundamental difference, they're both groups of armed personnel charged with enforcing the will of the state.

>Socialist democracies can't and don't exist, and never have.
Why can't they exist? Socialism is basically just democratic management of the economy.

Doesn't that suggest that the problem is overdependence on a single natural resource, rather than socialism?

>East Germany, a socialist state, thanks genius.
Their point is that an "evil communist state" uses police to enforce the law, rather than the military. If your argument is that a state is only evil and oppressive if it enforces laws by the military, rather than the police, then you'd have to admit that East germany was not oppressive.

>All collapsed because they didn't work.
What a meaningless statement.

>East Germany, a socialist state, thanks genius.
I wasn't implying that it was the only type of socialistic system. I was saying how even one of the most tightly monitored and repressive Eastern Bloc countries didn't call in the military routinely.
>All collapsed because they didn't work. Just because they were implemented for a short while before collapsing doesn't prove you right, it only proves you wrong.
They didn't work in the same way Rhodesia didn't work. Generally they were forcibly destroyed by outside forces. Other than that they worked internally. And don't pull some bullshit about how it's their fault they couldn't survive when everyone was trying to kill them.

It suggests the Chavez government was incompetent

>That doesn't even make sense. Even without private property rights, people would still desire things. It's not "theft" that's human nature, it's the desire to obtain. Once property rights are accepted, THEN the desire to obtain becomes a desire for theft. But property rights are contrary to human nature because humans would not respect them if they had the option not to.
Except it would always be theft, in this socialist utopia you imagine, or "naturally socialist" primitive people, what happens if Ug doesn't want to share his bow today, but Crunk takes it? That's theft. Private property has always existed, and never has not, it even exists in damn chimps for fucks sake.

Humans have that so many options to not respect private property rights, namely every attempt at socialism attempting to abolish these rights, but clearly the people do respect these rights as they have done throughout human history where private property has existed. This concept that private ownership is suddenly unnatural and wrong only comes from Marx and only appears then, never before, not even in primitive peoples, who respect the concept of ownership.

>Allende's Chile collapsed because it didn't work and not because Americans assassinated him and put a puppet idiot in charge

>What are the means of production in such society?
The people designated to produce, the skilled men and women of the group. They trade these items to other groups.
>There's no fundamental difference, they're both groups of armed personnel charged with enforcing the will of the state.
There's clearly a difference between political prisoner camps, and the military shooting protestors, and the police enforcing the law.
>Why can't they exist? Socialism is basically just democratic management of the economy.
I outlined why they can't exist, and the fact of the matter is that they do not as they all collapsed.
>I wasn't implying that it was the only type of socialistic system. I was saying how even one of the most tightly monitored and repressive Eastern Bloc countries didn't call in the military routinely.
But it had to be called in for Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, this was enough to scary the GDR into submission.
>They didn't work in the same way Rhodesia didn't work. Generally they were forcibly destroyed by outside forces
The magical outside forces which destroy every attempt at socialism. Has there been one, single successful attempt at socialism? No. You can only blame other people for so long. Why do you insist on continuing to believe and defend this clearly broken ideology.

>Central economic control and the abolition of profit-making De-incentives innovation and economic stimulation by individuals (this caused the famines in Ukraine during the early Soviet Union)
>Internationalist Socialists ignore the inherent tribal nature of humanity, cultural differences, and geographical interests that necessitate nation-states
>Tendency for one-party dictatorial states to emerge out of Socialist revolutions means that government affairs focus on consolidating power and crushing dissent (through secret police and censorship). This also means that the eventual anarchic Communist Utopia is never realised as the state fights to retain power.
>Moral bankruptcy; more of a personal gripe but the dismissal of religion, and the outright stated goal to rid society of morality, is not a sustainable plan for social order. I'd go into this more but I'm tired and I want to go to sleep it's half four in the morning for Christ's sake

Someone else argue against any point rebuttals I won't be in thread to defend my points.

What about the rest, Americans fault too?

Modern leftists just pray for strong AI to solve the calculation problem for them so they don't have to.

You can judge socialism by the socialist claims that every successful socialist state was successful "while it was around"

>But it had to be called in for Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, this was enough to scary the GDR into submission.
I meant the GDR calling in its own military.
>The magical outside forces which destroy every attempt at socialism. Has there been one, single successful attempt at socialism? No. You can only blame other people for so long. Why do you insist on continuing to believe and defend this clearly broken ideology.
It's not "magical." It's correct to blame someone else when they're to blame. Are you seriously arguing that it's Allende's fault the US sabotaged Chile's economy and the military staged a coup? By that logic, it's Rhodesia's fault everyone stopped supporting them in wartime, and it's Lithuania's fault the USSR invaded them.

Private property would mean that Ug is NEVER under any obligation to share his bow with anyone. And if you really think property rights are human nature, then you'd be perfectly okay with the government saying theft will no longer be regarded as a crime, right?

>The people designated to produce, the skilled men and women of the group.
That sounds like labor, not capital. The notion of "private property" is meaningless in an economy without capital.

>There's clearly a difference between political prisoner camps, and the military shooting protestors, and the police enforcing the law.
The law is just what the state wants the people to do. Getting dragged off to Siberia for saying "You know, I don't think Stalin is all that great" is literally a case of "the police enforcing the law".

>I outlined why they can't exist, and the fact of the matter is that they do not as they all collapsed.
You didn't do so though.

>But it had to be called in for Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, this was enough to scary the GDR into submission.
Weren't those cases where the states as a whole tried to rebel against the Soviet Union? As opposed to just ordinary day to day enforcement of Communist law.

Stop trying to make this specifically about Chile when it's not. You can blame outsides factors sometimes, but not every time, you can't explain the collapse of every socialist regime without eventually having to blame socialism.
How do you get to that insane leap of logic? If property rights are human nature, as they are, then theft will always be a crime as it violates that right.

>strong social safety net ala Scandinavia =socialism
When will this meme end?
Those countries have some of the most free, capitalistic economies in the world. They just have higher taxes.

>Muh human nature

>How do you get to that insane leap of logic? If property rights are human nature, as they are, then theft will always be a crime as it violates that right.
If respecting property rights is human nature, then people will respect property rights without being compelled by law. Seriously, if you want to go down that road, put your money where your mouth is. Leave your door open when you go to work, just leave a sign up saying "Everything in this house is my property, therefore to take it without my permission would be a violation of my rights".

ITT don't real capitalism

Chile is just one example. There's also Yugoslavia (destroyed largely by nationalism, though the internal system had its flaws), Catalonia (destroyed by tankies and fascists), Czechoslovakia (destroyed by the Soviets), Hungary (destroyed by literal tankies), Burkina Faso (destroyed by feudal lords), and the Paris Commune (destroyed by monarchists), to name a few.

Something like this?

>The law is just what the state wants the people to do. Getting dragged off to Siberia for saying "You know, I don't think Stalin is all that great" is literally a case of "the police enforcing the law".
Fine, but there is clearly still a difference in scale and force which I am trying to get at. Socialist states must use much more force, often military, and fear, to maintain their rule.
>You didn't do so though.
>Weren't those cases where the states as a whole tried to rebel against the Soviet Union? As opposed to just ordinary day to day enforcement of Communist law.
No, barring Hungary, they were mainly attempts to increase freedom while staying socialist and even remain within the SU, Dubceks "Socialism with a human face" for example, which got brutally repressed.

Some of this is bullshit or at least memes. 12 million did not starve here during the Depression. There were people that were seriously malnourished, and many others were reduced to eating leather, paper, glue, and other materials, but I've never read about millions starving.

I'm not ancap, that would be awful.
But don't you understand, private property is human nature, but theft is also human nature. These two concepts can and do coexist.
Take the thief, he OWNs a house, but he also STEALs others property, and finds no contradiction in this.
So why aren't capitalist nations destroyed by others, why are these socialist regimes so weak? And what is to say it isnt the inherent weaknesses of socialism therefore which allowed them to fall so easily, and that these factors you list are just the straws that broke the camels backs?

I remember back in 2006 my mom's friends talking about "da real revolution in Venezuela" and how great it was.
Those same fuckers are now posting 24/7 on facebook about how "CIA fucked the revolution".

They will never learn...

>No, barring Hungary, they were mainly attempts to increase freedom while staying socialist
Which is why the USSR invaded them. The USSR didn't want "friendly socialism", they wanted a firm grip over their client states, and couldn't have that kind of central power with a non-totalitarian form of socialism. Hence the USSR falling apart when they tried to stop being so totalitarian. And Dubcek is literally one of the examples on the "good socialism destroyed by outside forces" image.

>yfw real socialism was cucked for literally every ideology in history.

>But don't you understand, private property is human nature, but theft is also human nature. These two concepts can and do coexist.
Human nature is property rights for the self, but not for everyone else. Basically people like having their stuff, but also want other people's stuff. Hence human nature really being about "obtaining stuff", not respecting any kind of rights.

>So why aren't capitalist nations destroyed by others, why are these socialist regimes so weak?
Because we currently live in the era of capitalism. And within the Soviet bloc, the Soviets wanted control over everything and were intolerant of client states becoming "soft", even if they maintained socialist economies. Because the USSR, which held all the military power in the Communist world, didn't care so much about the economics, they were more concerned with keeping themselves in power.

>And what is to say it isnt the inherent weaknesses of socialism therefore which allowed them to fall so easily, and that these factors you list are just the straws that broke the camels backs?
It certainly is possible, but you'd have to prove that socialism is indeed responsible for making nations vulnerable to outside forces.

Yes exactly, socialism can't exist without a totalitarian state ruling it, which is what also leads to its eventual collapse as people wont put up with that forever, especially when over the fence there is glitzy western Europe.
The only place you're mistaken is that the outside force was Socialism.

>So why aren't capitalist nations destroyed by others
They have been all the time. France was invaded by Germany twice. Britain was bombed to shit in WWII and was relatively poor for the following years. Britain had Ireland in an iron fist for centuries.
>why are these socialist regimes so weak? And what is to say it isnt the inherent weaknesses of socialism therefore which allowed them to fall so easily, and that these factors you list are just the straws that broke the camels backs?
Having no allies and many powerful enemies doesn't generally bode well for any country, socialist or not.

Really made me think

>Yes exactly, socialism can't exist without a totalitarian state ruling it
He literally pointed out an example of it existing without a totalitarian state, and how totalitarianism was the real enemy there.

>Human nature is property rights for the self,
yes
>but not for everyone else.
Not entirely
>Basically people like having their stuff, but also want other people's stuff. Hence human nature really being about "obtaining stuff", not respecting any kind of rights.
Yes, humans are selfish dicks. We believe in our own private property rights, but we want to steal others, we see this on a huge scale through warfare.
>Because we currently live in the era of capitalism.
We always have been, property and trading has existed for all recorded history.
> Because the USSR, which held all the military power in the Communist world, didn't care so much about the economics, they were more concerned with keeping themselves in power.
Yeah because they had to be, because no one wanted them, for most democracies the first concern isn't maintaining the democracy.
>It certainly is possible, but you'd have to prove that socialism is indeed responsible for making nations vulnerable to outside forces.
That's easy, you just outlined the main reason, that they are essentially in conflict with their own people, the government vs the people, and then the poor economic situation because of a lack of freedom in the economy makes them unable to compete. Weak economy, unhappy people living in fear, inefficient and complicated bureaucracy, all makes a weak state which eventually collapses.

>They have been all the time. France was invaded by Germany twice. Britain was bombed to shit in WWII and was relatively poor for the following years. Britain had Ireland in an iron fist for centuries.
Come on that's weak, those nations didn't collapse, France experienced regime change but France experienced regime change basically every 30 years since the revolution anyway, Britain didn't, Ireland was freed.
>Having no allies and many powerful enemies doesn't generally bode well for any country, socialist or not.
But for many socialist states they had a gigantic world superpower as an ally and supporter, yet still collapsed.

It literally existed for 4 months and was on a direct course to become a western democracy, hardly a shiny example of working socialism, and as i said, put down by socialism anyway.

>We always have been, property and trading has existed for all recorded history.
That doesn't constitute capitalism though. We've been through at least feudalism and mercantilism before we even reached capitalism.

>Yeah because they had to be, because no one wanted them, for most democracies the first concern isn't maintaining the democracy.
The people in many Eastern European countries were pretty enthusiastic about "Friendly Socialism". But the USSR refused to allow it.

>and was on a direct course to become a western democracy, hardly a shiny example of working socialism
Western-style democracy doesn't mean non-socialist. Socialist doesn't mean non-democratic. One is about the economy, the other is about politics.

>That doesn't constitute capitalism though. We've been through at least feudalism and mercantilism before we even reached capitalism.
Yeah, but this isn't about capitalism.
>The people in many Eastern European countries were pretty enthusiastic about "Friendly Socialism". But the USSR refused to allow it.
Yea, those would have been a good time to actually try socialism in Europe without totalitarianism, but socialism also wouldn't allow it.

I think the experiment has gone on for long enough, full socialism doesn't work, has never worked, every attempt has failed, so it should stop being attempted as it only results in strife and misery.

Because no freedom.

>Yeah, but this isn't about capitalism.
Socialism doesn't mean "no ownership". It just means that ownership is determined by the application of labor.

>Yea, those would have been a good time to actually try socialism in Europe without totalitarianism, but socialism also wouldn't allow it.
A specific totalitarian nation that was also socialist wouldn't allow it. I don't see how that's socialism's fault.

Capitalism doesn't grant you freedom. It only grants people the freedom to offer other people freedom. Nobody has guaranteed freedom under capitalism, because everyone's freedom is owned by others.

Socialism isn't entirely about collectivism. Not any more so than democracy. Socialist societies can be individualistic, if that's how they wanted it. Also that is nonsense that is completely untrue about all kinds of collectivism, socialism and communism.

>But for many socialist states they had a gigantic world superpower as an ally and supporter, yet still collapsed.
I wasn't aware that the Soviet Union backed Dubcek.
>on a direct course to become a western democracy, hardly a shiny example of working socialism, and as i said, put down by socialism anyway.
Doesn't discount that it was socialist.

Freedom is attained by a balance of individualism and collectivism. Absolute individualism means you have unlimited freedom on paper, but no ability to practice it in any meaningful way.

It just sucks up a lot of money in the long term. Shit like free healthcare back when the NHS was first made probably wasn't envisioned as the monetary black hole it is now.

Besides the number one thing socialists latch onto is oil. It's always the fix to all their money issues. Ask your gf about how she'd fund it all.

>Socialism doesn't mean "no ownership". It just means that ownership is determined by the application of labor.
The central tenant of the ideology is the abolish of private property.
>A specific totalitarian nation that was also socialist wouldn't allow it. I don't see how that's socialism's fault.
Because "That was also socialist" is downplaying it, the reality is "because it was socialist"
>I wasn't aware that the Soviet Union backed Dubcek.
They did briefly but he went to far for them, regardless, don't play coy, the SU backed all socialist and communist states, they backed the Eastern European states.

I don't get you, are you trying to say all socialism failed but Dubcek's socialism would have been great if it wasn't for the socialist socialism of the USSR ruining their socialism?

This.

>The central tenant of the ideology is the abolish of private property.
Property under collective ownership, but not owned by literally the entire population, isn't private property.

>the reality is "because it was socialist"
You have yet to prove that. Why would the USSR attack another socialist state for being non-totalitarian, if socialism is synonymous with totalitarianism?

>Nazi Holocaust

Jews were buying gas like hotcakes.

>capitalist mode of production creates mental illnesses
>mental illness leads to murder

What part do you not understand, fucking moron?

And more welfare. Capitalism is compatible with social democracy.