Can you debunk socialism based on this definition?

>>135990904
who is 'the community at whole'? what prevents severe tyranny by majority?

>>135990904
(((socialism)))

>>135990904
yes

>>135990970
This, it's only pretending to remove the slave master

Community is made from individuals.
Individuals are not equal, some are better than others.

File: 1498764524982.jpg (13KB, 236x283px)

13KB, 236x283px

>>135990904
I would have no problem with socialism if there weren't so many ooga boogas in my "community"
National socialism is "true socialism"
the current state of socialism is just an extension of communism/marxism.

It's not owned by everyone, it's owned by the government that is decided by 51% of the people every 4 years.

Ownership is an individual concept based on the claim of exclusive use and control over the thing being claimed, everyone owning it is an oxymoron you will always have someone more in control than others which is why socialists default to the state.

Also tragedy of the commons.
Also its immoral to take what isn't yours, that definition necessitates forceful take over or regulation.

Immoral, impractical.

>>135990904
What prevented Soviet Union from being Socialist?

inb4 Ameriga

>>13599161 Will definitely use this argument.

Also decision making of this socialism is advocated as democratic; this means mob rules, disgarding of individual rights, decisions made based on salesmanship & popularity rather than efficiency, logic & consistent morality.

Democracy also has the flaws of extracing value rather than preserving it due to tbe control by temporary caretakers so to speak.

The OP also states that it is synonymous with Welfarism which we all know the flaws of and Fabianism which is about subversion & eugenics by elites that seek to control & mold the world which contradicts the goals of this kind of economic socialism by the very methods used to obtain & implement it.

Surely I don't have to keep going? Public ownership = collectivism, we could go on all night and this definition doesn't protect socialists from the vast arguments against it.

They shoot themselves in the foot with this definition because their arguments for it inevitably introduce appeals to emotion, democracy, welfarism, collectivism & equality in practice. So the theory by definition is shit and the practical attempts will always give us more and morr ammunition to tear it down.

>>135990904
>Can you debunk socialism based on this definition?


OH! LOOK AT THIS OBJECT THAT I HAVE!

OH! NOW IT BELONGS TO THE "COMMUNITY"

>economic theory
will fail 100% as with literally every other economic theory put into practice

>>135990904
>Utopian Socialism
>Utopian
>Socialism
They are diametrically opposed and do not belong in the same sentence.

Sure this definition sounds nice, but what if the community you're in is made up of humans?

That would be terrible. :(

At least 90% of people are fucking retarded.
"Community as a whole" can barely run themselves, let alone all industry.

>>135990904
>Can you debunk socialism based on this definition?
Yes
>synonyms: leftism
Done

File: stirner.jpg (15KB, 300x300px)

15KB, 300x300px

>>135991613
>Ownership is an individual concept based on the claim of exclusive use and control over the thing being claimed, everyone owning it is an oxymoron you will always have someone more in control than others
That's a faulty definition because possession, usage and control does not imply ownership. The factory worker does not own the hammer. The factory owner does.

Ownership is composed of two things: a claim and the power to enforce it.

Morality has nothing to do with it. Morality is no imperative in-itself.

>>135992389

Marxism is scientific socialism though