Socialism has a definition. You're not using it.

I agree that caring about others, striving for harmony, and helping those in need is a proper way to live.

But that's not socialism. And even after the advent your redefined socialism, there are far sturdier philosophical bases for such a lifestyle.

Some referencing of the thinkers influencing your thinking would be nice.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I think socialism as an association where people decide to put their resources in common, and to define a sort of egalitarian set of rules where everyone is expect to sacrifice some aspects of their indipendence to work for the collectivity. In that sense, I think families are (at least, partially) volountary socialist associations ( "volountary" for the adults, kids are forced to partecipate in the association).

I understand that you are thinking of it that way. You are wrong. Socialism is not the thing you are talking about. Your comparison ignores fundamental differences in worldview, scale, structure, and purpose, making it an inconsistent and oversimplified analogy. I can decide that Muslim patriarchy is equally family-friendly with enough exceptions. Doesn't mean I'm right.

You should have dinner with some 60-year-olds from Eastern Europe sometime.

"...where people decide"

Brosky you would do well to read some history books beginning with Mesopotamia