Yes quite! That is why Socialism has worked far better in The UK than the alternative, rampant co conspicuous consumerism.
This Thatcherite dogma when coupled with isolationism has resulted in the Current BREXIT fiasco. Please beware United States,and learn . It is a Global world ?we live in now.

@Petflow First the UK is not a socialist economy. It's still predominately capitalist. I'll also point out that the Soviet Union couldn't feed it's people without food from the US.

It's a good thing that the EU doesn't have a standing army. If it did BREXIT would likely result in a civil war. OTOH I'm not sure there are many people loyal enough to the EU to fight and die for it. That's why global governance will fail. Ultimately the problem with BREXIT is that the British people want something Brussels doesn't want and the British government isn't sure about. Personally I'd call Brussel's bluff and go for a hard exit,. The last time someone attempted to have a global government we got WWII.

I'll leave you a quote from Tom Wolfe.

The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.

It is Europe that hasn't learned.

Really?? Socialism AKA Communism????
This political philosophy has been what has driven the UKs success story post war, until the greed of the large capitalist organisations caused the eco mimic slow down post 2005, exacerbated by our frankly incompetent Conservative government 's insistence Austerity " measures resulting in food banks, homelessness, unemployment,and a thinly disguised depression. Then our glorious leaders decided to ask for a referendum on Brexit!! G(To cater for the isolationist element in his party The rest is it will be history.

@Petflow Yes, Socialism and Communism have morphed into the same ideology. As far as the UK, if it's failing it has nothing to do with capitalism, but rather a direct link to Socialism. Socialism always implodes on its people, always. Add into it mass immigration of people who hold none of the same values as their host country and refuse to assimilate; it's a recipe for disaster. The UK is reaping what it's sewed over the centuries.

Slavery is not a true example in this case since the implication is that, if all agree, than you share goods as a community.

In a example of a household family a husband is not a slave to his wife when he distributes his means of production to her and vice versa.

It would only be slavery if an individual does not desire to be part of a community that shares the ideology and is forced.

Everyone fixated on the assumption of forced redistribution which is in fact evil. But when a family household governs itself as a socialist system, we see this works and generally benefits the whole due to an agreed method of redistribution that all parts benefit from.

@Debatio Your example is completely false: the worker in a capitalist society voluntarily chooses to take on the responsibility of supporting a family. That's not "redistribution," that's economic freedom: him choosing what to do with the product of his own labor. That is the exact opposite of what you are advocating.

If that worker lives in a socialist society, the society "owns or regulates" his labor and property. He does not control it; society controls it. He has no freedom. That is slavery, and that is socialism.

That is why socialism is evil.

@jneedler I would completely agree. The only issue is that you assume socialism ideology has some mentality of “forced redistribution”. I’f it was entirely voluntary, in the case of family life it works.

My question is why is it inherently evil as a philosophical ideal.

Please remember not to use implementation or examples of poorly designed socialist governments as I would agree those will always be evil and fail.

I am suggesting that in a family where a wife/husband can fairly argue and debate why and where your labors/products are distributed then why is that an evil mentality. If all parties agree consentually to a redistribution of goods then is that evil?

Hypothesis: if every single person was willing to contribute an equal share of goods, in a community, in the common goal of human progression is that inherently evil?

Erm No we own our own labour!!! Omg.

@Debatio There is a name for a society where people get to voluntarily do whatever they want with the products of their labor, including give them away - it's called "free market."

According to your own definition of socialism: "means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

You can't have it both ways: you can't have ownership of your own wages, AND society have ownership of your wages. Either you own it and can give it away as you see fit, or society owns it and you are a slave.

Which would you choose?

A community in this aspect would be a group that has a common interest and a agreed upon needs. Please see my reply to incajackson in which I refer to a community as a family in an example of my meaning.

I elaborated on the struggles of individual needs and how there becomes a larger disparity when there are larger numbers which leads to the reasoning on why grand scale implementation doesn’t work.

I agree in your points. And I too recently traveled to Bratislava and saw the growth from the turn from communism. I spoke with a gentlemen their who was part of the student revolution, who helped take down the fences. He spoke on the dangerous and destruction of communism and how much better it is there now.

This though is speaking more to the ideology not implementation. I firmly believe and implementation where a group is forced into an ideology at gun point via the government will ultimately fail.

I firmly believe human nature is at a constant contradiction between coveting your fellow mans goods and wanting to help each other progress as a human race. It’s the mentality of charity vs theft, the fine line here is the implementation of redistribution. Forced vs willing.

Socialism inherently assumes all parties are willing and wanting to share all goods, which I believe humans would if all gained. We see this examples in marriage and family as all parties believe and are willing to share all goods in the mentality that the family benefits more from a group effort than individual efforts.

@Debatio Sure, but again, that is theory. If you apply this theory to a vast number of people, it will fail. Even kibbutzes and small communes often struggle to prosper. Not even speaking about marriages - two people have enough to do to get along, and often even this simple and tiny union fails.

I agree but the debate is not on socialist governments but on socialist ideology.

I am not arguing the failure of implementation due to human greed and work ethic. We see this in families that struggle. A common factor in why divorce takes place is because one or both parties feel they are contributing more than the other and are not obtaining equal reciprocation in efforts toward the goals decided at the start.

@Debatio I am part of a union that has many socialistic tendencies about it. Everyone is rewarded equally with the benefit and wage package and I have noticed in both unions I have been in that there are few individuals who will do as little as possible just to get by. Then there are some, who because of personal pride, will go above and beyond. Now we all make the same wage and have the same benefit package but I think we can agree it’s not a 100% fair system to the guys who go above and beyond because, even though the reward is the same, they are putting forth more effort than the “just get by” guys.

It seems without an overseeing body the socialist ideology cannot be put into place and with the less than perfect nature of mankind at the top and at the bottom of the socialist society it seems like it will always fail.

@JJSabo so then we agree. The ideology is not evil, it’s the human greed and people who attempt to take advantage of the system.

I would say that the people who slide by aren’t interested in helping their fellow man which is why the ideology never works outside a small loving community. But I feel this goes to show that the idea can be good but the implementation is what doesn’t work.

That's actually the strength of socialism. Unfortunately, lazy people are not so lazy that they don't vote.

I can agree here.

The concept is not if socialism works. On a grand scale it doesn’t seem to due to the nature that an individual need may not match the needs as a community.

We see that families and very small communities can play into a socialist method and be very successful. In fact most families would run a household this way. If this is more or less true, then why do we assume it is “evil”. If families can generally be successful and happy in this ideology that we can’t assume an agreed upon redistribution method is necessarily bad.

This is my case for why it’s actually “good” in its ideology but it doesn’t work in practice beyond small numbers. I feel the reason that is, is due in large case to the lack of interpersonal relationships between a socialist society in large scales which leads to a community that is too diverse in its needs to fit the model.

This is why it is so attractive. Because the “paper version” is inherently good, and attempts to drive a world where people can live happily and “work less” to persue passions. Since human greed, and corruption are not calculated into its original equation it doesn’t work.

Do understand I am without a doubt a capitalist. But my point in this post is to drive an understanding of why people want socialism and what is good about it in theory.