I think you and the OP have a clash of definition and are looking at different models of socialism.
You look at the socialism how it was conducted in the USSR and Eastern Europe where OP is probably looking at Western Europe.
Socialism isn't well defined and ranges from far left to Democratic socialism. Discussions with an American POV often neglect to acknowledge that in Europe lots of governments in Europe have socialist parties in them.
I'm French, I use the definition of socialism other French thinkers have such as Tocqueville, Jean-Baptiste Say or Bastiat. This definition includes all the kinds of socialism you described and as these thinkers say they are all bad and since the 20th century we also know they are criminal the more they are enforced.
Whereas we already know since the 19th century that capitalism is criminal the more it is enforced?
If your government is criminal it doesn't matter if you're living in a capitalist, socialist, communist, or pastafarian state.
I fail to see how the mixture of socialism and capitalism as it was implemented in most of Western Europe in the second half of the last century could be used as an argument for the hypothesis that "all kinds of socialism are bad".
Capitalism doesn't need to be enforced, people willingly exchanging things happens naturally, regulating and taxing these exchanges requires initiation of force though (socialism).
> I fail to see how the mixture of socialism and capitalism as it was implemented in most of Western Europe in the second half of the last century could be used as an argument for the hypothesis that "all kinds of socialism are bad".
And there lies the problem. Just Google issues of Keynesianism and why it's bad or have a blast and go read some Tocqueville, Jean-Baptiste Say or Bastiat.
Of course full capitalism needs to be enforced. People using the resources they need happens naturally. Protecting private property requires initiation of force. Just Google issues of Libertarianism.
If your body is your private property, then anyone trying to trespass without your consent is initiating force and enforcing is not initiation of force. I consider the fruit of my labor to be, like my body, my private property and anyone trespassing it without my consent is initiating force.
Most people protect their body, because they have instinct for self-preservation, regardless of their beliefs about property. You presented no argument why we should treat natural resources or fruit of labor the same as human body. You just assume Libertarian definitions. It's a bit like fundamentalist religious person saying "I consider love to be a product of a god, so you feeling love confirms gods existence." There is no interesting argument in that statement.
Actually most mammals instinctively defend with force the fruit of their labor or their private property. Just try to steal a monkey's food of try to walk on the land of a lion he peed on to mark it as his and see what happens to you. It's natural to most mammals (and even reptiles) to protect their private property and fruit of labor as if it was their own body because their survival depends on these things not being trespassed.
We're animals too, mammals to be precise, sounds like an honest cherry-picked as it's literally the family of animals we belong to. Hard to fight one of our most basic animal nature: the defense of our body and personal territory and property.
Socialism also happens naturally. I've met lots of hospitable people that willingly shared goods with me without anything in return but my presence. People also used to kill each over everything. Human beings are complex and do lots of things. The problems are only starting when a society emerges that is too large to selfgovern.
Looks like you put everything that resembles "big government" or "government intervention" under socialism. I wouldn't understand how else you could even remotely think that Keynesianism could be called socialism. Keynes considered himself a capitalist.
One remark. Discussions work much better if you actually tell your opinion and give one or two substantial arguments. Resorting to name dropping doesn't make for an interesting exchange of thoughts.
Neither is willingly exchanging goods the same thing as capitalism. But if you go back so far and claim that some -ism develops naturally, you have to find some similar actions.
Not even talking about that "exchanging goods" (even for money) does also happen in socialism and communism.
It happens naturally but not without force, theft (like murder) happens naturally but not without coercion. The free exchange of goods and service between consenting adults happens without coercion, and naturally.
The problem is most people probably don't agree with your definition of force and theft. I also don't know how you define the natural and why it should matter whether something is natural or not.
Forget the natural part, the important part is coercion. You can't have socialism without coercion and initiation of force, you can have a free market though.
As I already said, most people probably don't share your definition of initiating force and coercion. You provide no reason why those terms should be based only on private property. If you define initiation of force as "initiation of force, except when i'm protecting property", then you can obviously come to the conclusion that you don't initiate force, but you are still initiating force by other peoples definition, unless you can justify to them the assumption in your definition.
You only have a free market without coercion as long as all participants act in good faith. Otherwise you either have to let bad actors get away with whatever they like, in which case you no longer have a market, or else someone has to coerce them into fulfilling their obligations.
> You only have a free market without coercion as long as all participants act in good faith.
No, you have a free market without coercion as long as there is no coercion. If some are acting in bad faith or badly, that's more power to the competition.
You look at the socialism how it was conducted in the USSR and Eastern Europe where OP is probably looking at Western Europe.
Socialism isn't well defined and ranges from far left to Democratic socialism. Discussions with an American POV often neglect to acknowledge that in Europe lots of governments in Europe have socialist parties in them.