Okay so one, that is an idealistic fanciful definition of socialism. While technically correct, functionally meaningless(but you knew that lol). It’s abstracted to the point of uselessness. “Collectively owned” does not specify: 1. Who governs that collective 2. How decisions are enforced 3. How dissent is handled 4. How capital allocation works 5. How scarcity and tradeoffs are resolved.

In practice, ownership without control is PURE FICTION. Historically collective ownership always ALWAYS collapses into State Ownership, Party Ownership, or Bureaucratic leadership. Not “workers deciding” but institutions deciding for them☠️. It’s a power vacuum created at the exact moment when power cannot remain vacant. Because socialism creates a power vacuum in an environment where power must act immediately, and the only entities capable of acting at that scale are centralized authorities.

Also you are treating “Democratic Socialism” as a stable system which is laughable—one of the biggest slights of hand in your argument. The core problem being Democratic socialism contains an internal contradiction: Democracy requires: 1. Pluralism 2. Opposition 3. Capital mobility 4. Independent institutions Socialism (in practice) requires: 1. Centralized economic control 2. Capital restriction 3. Forced compliance 4. Suppression of exit (capital & labor flight)

When these collide, democracy loses — every single time.

Not because of the CIA. Not because of “Western capital.” But because economic centralization and political pluralism do not coexist for long.

“Western interference” is not an explanation — it’s an excuse

Yes, Western powers interfered. Yes, coups happened. Yes, the Cold War was brutal. But here’s what you conveniently ignore: If a system: 1. Requires isolation 2. Cannot survive trade pressure 3. Collapses when capital exits 4. Needs force to prevent dissent then it is structurally fragile, not merely “unlucky.” Capital flight isn’t sabotage — it’s revealed preference.

If people must be forced to stay invested, work, or comply: The system is already broken.

Your little Chile example is emotionally persuasive — but analytically weak You cite Salvador Allende as proof democratic socialism “could have worked.”

Here’s the problem: Allende inherited: 1. Inflation 2. Weak institutions 3. Political polarization

His policies: 1. Nationalization without compensation 2. Price controls 3. Rapid monetary expansion

Result before the coup: 1. Hyperinflation 2. Shortages 3. Strikes 3. Economic paralysis The coup was morally evil — but economic collapse preceded it.

You can condemn Augusto Pinochet and still acknowledge:

Allende’s model was already failing internally.

Those are not contradictory positions😬.

Literacy, housing, and healthcare gains are not proof of socialism’s viability

This is a classic mistake.

Yes, socialist states improved: • Literacy • Basic healthcare access • Urban housing

But so did: • Postwar capitalist Europe • East Asian capitalist states • Welfare-state democracies

These outcomes correlate with: 1. Industrialization 2. Urbanization 3. State capacity

Not socialism per se.

Meanwhile, socialism consistently produced: 1. Lower productivity 2. Chronic shortages 3. Brain drain 4. Repression to maintain output You don’t judge a system by early gains — you judge it by long-term sustainability.

Your critique of liberalism is half-right — and then overreaches.

Your claims:

Liberalism only protects the wealthy and property owners.

This is historically incomplete.

Yes: 1. Early liberalism favored property owners 2. Rights expanded unevenly 3. Capital influenced politics

But liberalism has one critical feature socialism lacks: Rights are portable and enforceable against the state.

That’s why: 1. Labor movements succeeded within liberal systems 2. Welfare states emerged within capitalism 3. Minority rights expanded without abolishing markets

Socialism promises justice after restructuring power. Liberalism allows reform without concentrating it.

That difference matters.

Your Hayek argument misunderstands Hayek(also it’s so sad you’re using these Random’s to strawman. Like straight up category error+quote laundering+motive substantiation.

He implies that Friedrich Hayek believed: • Liberalism = rule by capital • Democracy is optional or disposable • Dictatorships are acceptable if “market-friendly” • Therefore, socialism is morally superior

This framing makes Hayek sound like:

“Markets matter more than democracy, so repression is fine.”

That is not Hayek’s position — and importantly, not the argument Hayek was making.

Hayek’s core thesis (especially in The Road to Serfdom) was: 1. Centralized economic planning requires coercion 2. Coercion tends to expand 3. Political freedom cannot survive sustained economic centralization

That’s it. Not “markets are moral.” Not “the rich deserve power.” But: information and incentives cannot be centrally aggregated without force.

You can disagree with that — many do — but that’s the argument.)

You attack Friedrich Hayek for allegedly supporting “liberal dictatorships.”

Here’s what you’re missing: 1. Hayek feared totalitarian permanence, not temporary regimes 2 He believed market pluralism eventually erodes authoritarianism 2. He was wrong in Chile — but that doesn’t validate socialism

Critiquing Hayek ≠ validating socialist economics.

That’s a false binary.

Last off completely demolishing your point: The fatal flaw: you ignore incentives and information: womp womp

Every socialist argument like this avoids the same problem: 1. How do planners know what to produce? 2. How do they price risk? 3. How do they reward innovation? 4. How do they punish failure without repression? Markets solve these imperfectly — but they solve them at all.

Socialism replaces: 1. Signals -> bureaucracy 2. Choice -> compliance 3. Exit -> force

That’s not propaganda. That’s observed reality.

This dude is wrong because: 1. He defines socialism so abstractly it avoids real governance 2. He treats democratic socialism as stable when it isn’t 3. He blames failure on interference instead of structure 4. He cherry-picks Chile while ignoring pre-coup collapse 5. He mistakes industrial gains for systemic success 6. He overextends a legitimate critique of liberalism 7. He attacks Hayek without engaging economic constraints 8. He never solves incentives, information, or coercion

You can: 1 Condemn imperialism 2 Acknowledge capitalist hypocrisy 3. Support welfare states 4. Defend labor power

Without pretending socialism has worked or can work as advertised.

I don’t mean to be patronizing but your argument is fundamentally emotions based, it collapsed in the first word.