I'm not an American, but I don't despise socialism because I think it will bring totalitarianism. I think it's an unnatural and unfair system. And I think this mismatch with natural order always results in failure and collapse, which has many forms. One of those is totalitarianism.
There is a natural order to this world, and those who try to upend it do not fare well.
The natural order is the law of the jungle. The strong eats/exploits the weak. Would you agree that this is the most natural order? I think the whole point of civilization is that we can do better than that.
Let's define socialism as the collective control and ownership of the means of production and their profits, and capitalism as the private ownership of these things. In this case I'm not sure which is intrinsically more "fair". I care deeply about individual freedom and not having some collective telling me how I should live my life. But at the same time I care a lot about social justice and not having the rich and powerful grind the poor for personal profit.
It seems obvious that a good system would be one that strikes the right balance between these conflicting interests. It certainly isn't whatever is most "natural". Nature serves no purpose.
Also, a force we have to contend with is the development of technology. I think it has the consequence that the "right balance" is shifting more towards intervention from the state: due to increasing automation, the capital is getting an ever greater share of profits. At some point the state has to intervene to enable some redistribution of wealth.
> Let's define socialism as the collective control and ownership of the means of production and their profits
> I care deeply about individual freedom and not having some collective telling me how I should live my life
Indeed, you're critiquing an inherent characteristic of socialism, that you even mentioned in your own definition in the first quote. Good so far.
> capitalism as the private ownership of these things
> I care a lot about social justice and not having the rich and powerful grind the poor for personal profit.
... Wait what? Capitalism doesn't prevent social justice and doesn't mean that the rich and powerful grind the poor for personal profit.
This is a textbook false equivalency.
> At some point the state has to intervene to enable some redistribution of wealth.
Not really, in a true capitalist society the producers would know that they need consumers or else they'll lose their income, it's self-correcting. A state is tangential to that.
The reason the USA might or might not be going into a totalitarian oligarchy is because of the state, not in spite of it.
See for us the difference between socialism vs Capitalism is like the difference between eating unhealthy (but tasty) food vs eating healthy food.
Not everyone who eats unhealthy food dies, nor does not everyone who eats healthy food lives to see 100. But fundamentally looking at other people who have managed to live despite of eating unhealthy food or some combination of these isn't the way to go.
The people who have lived to see 80 despite of eating McDonalds burger everyday, have done that due to a combination of good genetics + some other redeeming qualities. This does not mean that everybody should eat McDonalds or anyone talking about harmful effects of unhealthy food should shut up because clearly there are people enjoying their lives while eating unhealthy food.
Take for instance, an African country trying same socialist policies will not see the same effect as a European country trying them. Same thing goes with Capitalist policies.
Socialism in Russia was very 'Russian', and when they got Capitalism, it's again very 'Russian' in nature. In fact when you go back to Tsar's times, you'd find the same 'Russian' entity about their culture.
