You assume too much.
1: Government is part of a society, government is molded by society, not independent of it. The Nordic countries have socialism because it is part of their tenets, “we believe this, therefore we will set up a government that matches it” If the US were to become more socialist, then it would work if implemented properly because the US government would be shaped on US society. However, if a minority of society changes the way things work the society as a whole may be shifted with it. This is often the case of how things move forward. One thing that accelerated the acceptance for interracial marriage was the Supreme Court legalizing it in the 60s with almost everyone opposed. After people got used to it, then things changed. It is very possible that if socialist reform was pushed in the US that the country will adjust to it because this is how things often work.
2: This is the best case of the establishment fallacy, in which people are willing to excuse many issues, if not all problems with an established tenet or system because it has been established, people will say “well it works, doesn’t it?” and then it gets coupled with the Nirvana fallacy, in which reform or action gets shot down at the sight of the first flaw “well, in Communism, some people might be lazy, and that will fuck everything up!”
2b: Actually, there are genes in our DNA that naturally make us more generous and make us happier when we share. We carry these genes from mice, which are known for having anti-individualistic, communal societies. Although ambition does exist, we are programmed to look after each other, so in reality capitalism is horribly incompatible with human nature. Even when we are being selfish we still have a tendency to rely on others for certain things.
3: Perhaps another example of Nirvana fallacy, but also with connecting things. Here’s a good question: If it’s called Communism, is it automatically communist?
Let’s compare the 10 main tenets in the Communist Manifesto to Stalin, Mao, and Tito
1: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Stalin: Land concentrated in the hands of the state, all control dictated from the central government, people could not necessarily get what they needed because it was almost entirely Stalin controlled, because the regional and municipal authorities couldn’t do a damn thing without hearing from Moscow. Stalin kept a lot of hand for himself. De facto feudalism.
Mao: Like Stalin, but worse, with even fewer power delegated to regions. Everyone takes every order straight from Mao. De facto archaism (I’m defining archaism as being in the tradition of the ancient kings, where the King has everything and you have squat)
Tito: Property in state hands, regional and municipal governments have authority to use and dole out land as necessary without getting all authority straight from Belgrade. People were able to get land resources as needed, despite some land being reserved for higher ups. De facto communism.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
I’m not going individual on this one, all 3 did this right out of the book.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
All 3 abolished most forms of inheritance, bar personal inheritance. However, while Yugoslav families were often allowed to continue to occupy ancestral homes, Soviet and Chinese ones were not, and were often shuffled around.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Soviet Union and China did this, Yugoslavia only sort of did. Yugoslavs had freedom of travel and could leave the country, work, and send money home.
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Done in all 3. De facto communism.
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Stalin: Done, with no room for private media. Transport was handled from Moscow only, mostly. De facto fascism.
Mao: See Stalin
Tito: Done, with some room for private media. Media was strictly regulated, punishment against opposition strict at first but then laxed. Transportation handled by Belgrade and regional and municipal governments. De facto communism.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Stalin: Done with mediocre agricultural science. Science constricted by Moscow. De facto fascist.
Mao: Done with abysmal agricultural science. Scientific authority done by Mao, Mao had sparrows killed and expected people to mill steel in the soil, somehow. De facto fascism/WTF
Tito: Done with agricultural scientific authority from institutions of learning and scientists. De facto communism.
Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Stalin: Higher ups had no liability, except to Stalin. Unions had no power. De facto fascism.
Mao: Mao had no liability. Unions had no power. De facto fascism.
Tito: Most everyone had liability. Unions had necessary powers, could negotiate. De facto communism.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
None of them seemed to care about this one.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.
Stalin: Done, with little personal choice in one’s education. De facto semi-fascist.
Mao: No education for you, go join Red Guard. De facto fascism
Tito: People had access to all the education they wanted or needed. De facto communism.
So, let’s see how they ended up: Stalin’s USSR suffered famine and a squeeze of personal rights, mainly because the unions had no power.
Mao’s China suffered extreme famine because they went after sparrows and expected people to farm things that are impossible to farm, didn’t give them their resources, mainly because the unions had power.
Tito’s Yugoslavia had an economic growth rate of about 7% a year, guaranteed employment, basically no poverty, freedom of travel, the most educated people in the world, and they didn’t do anything nuts. Oh, but when they moved away from that that’s when things went down the shitter.
Huh… seems like the one that was closest to actual communism did really well. Maybe it’s because public services+union power is communism in a nutshell, and without union power, you fuck up hard, and you also fail communism?
4: If that’s the situation, doesn’t limited government seem like a really bad idea?
6: Not quite. We do have genes which gives humans certain tendencies from birth, so…
7: It’s not the speed that’s the problem, it’s the tenets and leaders. There are a lot of times when rapid revolution has worked. It’s just that if rapid revolution fails it sticks in our heads a lot more than if slow.
8: How so?