Sincerely Yours,

Comrade Max

The reason that there are no Socialist countries, and won't be in my lifetime, is because of the failure to acknowledge class struggle. For Capitalism to be met, Feudalism must first crumble (examine Britain before Industrial Revolution) in order for Capitalism to arise. Capitalism allows for production to increase to overcompensate for humanity, further allowing the hoarding of resources. Since the USSR, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and all "Socialist" African nations had not fully escaped colonial Feudalism and fully Capitalized, they were all doomed to horrible failure. However, then you have nations like Cuba and Venezuela, which were at least progressing in the Capitalist system beforehand. In Cuba's case, the failure is largely due to the US embargo and support of anti-Castro forces since before Castro even considered himself to be a Socialist. With the failing economy, the private sector had to be completely replaced as a public sector, and help could only be found by the already-flawed USSR. As for Venezuela, the idea is folly. Their economy is nowhere near the point where it could support the notion of Socialism.

Therefore, what should be taken from this is that a nation must emerge from Feudalism. Then, it must become fully Capitalist, like Britain or the USA, and develop until Capitalism collapses (similar to the Depression, but likely worse; certainly not for many more years). This could be through government reformism, corporate abuse of workers, or, most likely, the market bubble bursting from a key industry at a horrid moment. Only then can Socialism be considered, and it should not be taken as an Authoritarian ideology even then. Should any part differ, the whole idea will fall into either a horrid Totalitarian State of Death, or a semi-successful, slightly oppressive, feigned Republic (Cuba, Venezuela). It's like making a cake: put the wrong ingredient in at the wrong time, and the whole thing will fall apart.

Finally, your notion of corruption and incentive deserves to be addressed, as it is a valid point. First, corruption is to be checked by a more direct Democracy. Should the people, with nigh-absolute civic liberty, be displeased with an official, and be supported by a majority, that official can be recalled for failing to represent the constituents. Essentially, the job of the representatives would be to vote as the constituents voted and to propose policy, nothing else. Next shall be incentives. In a Capitalist system, at least in the early days of the system, it had great incentive. Leaping on an opportunity could generate great wealth. However, in the semi-monopolies of today's corporations, such incentive is either horridly repressed or eliminated altogether. Those that work hard for 50 years are not offered promotion, as hard workers are more profitable doing hard work. Additionally, starting a business to compete is either wiped out by inability to get a loan due to lack of wage due to corporate profit, or is crushed by corporate competition. Wal-Mart alone has crushed tens of thousands of family-owned businesses simply because the small businesses could not hope to gain enough money to compete with Wal-Mart. In Capitalism, the incentive has decayed. You work, you may survive. In Socialism, though, all is collected and distributed according to ability and need, respectively. Innovation will come from human curiosity. Competition is not necessarily erased. The State does not hold the power, but the people do. If a product is not satisfactory, there are millions with the freedom to produce it differently, which, with a Gift Economy, can ensure the continuation of a business. The incentive is the direct improvement of the quality of life, for more production equals more to be distributed or exported. Also, as Socialism is a Workers' State, only workers (the proletariat) would receive the benefits, but all benefits would be equivalent. Therefore, unemployment is the biggest issue, with welfare benefits very low. The will to survive will instill work.

When you speak of exceptionalism as bad and fitting the mold as good in Socialism, you are instead referring to Totalitarianism, like in the Leninist/Stalinist nations and the Maoist nations. This is not Socialism. However, in Capitalism, the hard working are not rewarded. Instead, the wealthiest are those who have inherited their wages, or who have the simple task of signing papers and giving an annual investment meeting. These are the 1% of all Americans that control 33% of all American wealth. They are not hardworking when compared to those on the assembly line, those on the construction crew, those in municipal maintenance, those in law enforcement, fire safety, medical care, etc, etc, etc. When your system of "incentives" leaves 90% of the American populace, 270,000,000 people, of which only 30,000,000 are unemployed, with only 30% of the wealth, and the upper 30,000,000 (10%) with 70% of the wealth, I'd say your incentives have failed.

Your Friend in Civil Discourse,

Comrade Max

Let me just stop you at "In a capitalistic society, as opposed to a socialistic society, we should whenever possible try to keep as many things out of the governments’ hands as is possible," because that clearly indicates that you do not understand the workings of Revolution, Socialism, and Communism.

First of all, Socialism is not a government-planned economy, or Totalitarian society like what the USSR, China, DPRK, Laos, Cuba, Cambodia, etc., have demonstrated. They are what we call SINOs (similar to RINO, except substitute the "Republican" for "Socialist"). In other words, just because they labeled themselves as Socialist to their people and in their Constitutions (because they did and do have one or more), doesn't mean that they are Socialist. Socialism is Democracy at a higher level. Instead of a high-government, high-bureaucracy, low-freedom system, Socialism rejects Executive Authoritarianism, opting for an expansive Assembly, Duma, Soviet, Congress, or Parliament of elected workers by other workers. Their job is simply to direct the economy as to how their constituents already voted. Socialism eliminates poverty, excessive wealth, unemployment, and restores many of the social freedoms that have so far been denied to the US, such as gay marriage, legal abortion, safe-sex education, a lowering of the voting age to anyone legally employed, etc., all so that more can help direct the nation. It is a bottom-up system, a grassroots system of limited government control and much individual freedom.

Socialism must come from a Revolution spurred by Capitalism, otherwise a number of bad things may happen. For instance, in all countries that claim Socialism, they revolted from the precursor to Capitalism: Feudalism. As a result, they were not industrialized, sacrificed as many as possible to achieve industrialization as fast as possible, and still could not provide for all the citizens because of no previously existing free markets. However, the "Socialist" nations of Europe, like Greece or Sweden, did not have a Revolution, and have tried reformism to attain Socialism, resulting in overspending and economic collapse. Capitalism can only give way to Socialism from Revolution.

Of course, there's still another major step after Socialism: pure autonomy, or Communism. Communism is not what Lenin, Stalin, or Mao have made it out to be. Instead, it is a classless, Stateless version of Socialism where all is owned equally by all. Governance is practically non-existent, so it is obvious that the USSR, China, DPRK, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, etc., could not have been Communist at all.

The systems of the aforementioned nations was that of Totalitarianism and State Capitalism. In other words, the people obeyed the charismatic leader of the government, no matter what, and class was based on government. If you were in the government, you were rich, if not, you were likely starving. Totalitarianism was created as a tangent of Fascism, an ideology of the Far Right associated with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Its purpose is to unify the entire populace as one, thoughtless existence dedicated only to what was "good for the nation." Communism rejects the idea of Nationalism and Statism altogether, another indication that the aforementioned States were not Communist. (A good indicator of Left and Right political systems is based on the prominent role of which branch of government. Left favors the Legislative Branch due to its representation of the masses, while the Far Right favors the Executive Branch due to its ability to ignore the Democratic process and act quickly and decisively.)

Sincerely Yours, and With Much Hope,

Comrade Max