Sounds like "Lord of the Flies."

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Umberto Eco was born in Italy in 1932 so grew up watching the Italian fascists and German fascists do their thing....

Did you know that Mussolini, who wrote the Fascist manifesto, was not originally a Fascist, but a follower in another party?
Do you know that there's another ideology to which almost everything you and Eco wrote also applies equally?
Did you know that both these ideologies are not so much rejections of modernism as they are rejections of what they call "Capitalism," and that both launch from a point of criticising the excesses of modern economies?
Did you know they both reject classical liberalism, and opt instead for collectivism?
That both reject private property, individual rights, and open markets?
That both hate minority populations?
That both have produced major wars, purges, prison camps and more dead bodies than any other ideology in history -- by orders of magnitude, so not in a small way?
Did you know that Nazism stands for "National Socialism"?
Did you know that one of these forms of Socialism produced Hitler, and the other produced Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim Jongs, Mugabe, Castro, Ceacescu, Hoxha, Maduro...and a host of lesser dictators?

So what is this other Socialism?  It's Communism, of course.

So why do we get so interested in Fascism, which is essentially dead and buried...and not at all concerned about its bigger, even more homicidal cousin, which is still very much alive? And why are we trying various forms of Socialism again, when Socialism, both Nazi and Communist, has killed at least 140 million people and immiserated billions more?

There's two who, tonight, are possibles to be elected president and vice president.   Now, that's not to say they'll succeed in getting their agenda implemented, because at least some of America is resistant to such things.  But if they get their way, they'd have America going full Socialist.

Why don't we learn from history? Although Socialism has been tried, and tried, and tried in the last century, it's always had two reliable effects: one is piles of dead bodies, and the other is utter economic failure.  There are no exceptions. Anytime Socialism has been permitted to run the state, death and economic dysfunction have ensued.  So what on earth would make anybody try it again?

That is, unless he/she was a fully-indoctrinated Socialist.  And there are too many of those still around.
 

Flint wrote:

I didn't have any socialist candidates on my ballot. What state are you in?

Yeah, you did.

The state of euphoria.
 

tw wrote:

IC wrote:

Anytime Socialism has been permitted to run the state, death and economic dysfunction have ensued.   

It is socialism in France. 

Well, France is currently massively dysfunctional, of course; but leaving that aside, no, it's not.  It has some "socialized" elements to its economy, but it's far from a Socialist-run state.  Neither are the Scandanavian countries, which have some other "socialized" elements, but have competing political parties, democratic elections, and markets that are, in many ways, more open than those in the US.

Socialism is everyone shares in the wealth.

No, Socialism -- as we see in every case -- is a system by which the ordinary citizen is impoverished and oppressed, while a Socialist elite and party insiders live lavishly at the public expense.  There is not one example where what you have suggested has happened.

When socialism breaks down, then communism is everyone works to enrich the Central Committee of the Communist Party.

Now you've got it right...except that's not when Socialism "breaks down," because it results in the same sort of egregious exploitation in every case.  That's Socialism in full bloom.

Every country has some variation of socialism.

No, many countries have some elements of their polity that work in roughly "socialistic" ways, such as "socialized medicine," or "public education."  They're not Socialist countries.  Their politics and economics are not run by Socialist theory.  And whenever you find a country where they are, you find corpses and economic disaster.

Socialism appears to work best when dominated by free market forces.

What you really mean...what' is really true here...is that "socialized" elements cannot pay for themselves. They depend on what Socialists call "capitalistic" economics, or they would quickly perish from sheer inability to generate and properly manage resources.

The state of euphoria is also called the state of utopia.

No, "euphoria" is and emotional condition.  "Utopia" means "no place," and is exactly where Socialism leaves everybody.  No wonder, then, that Socialism is utopian...there's no place where it's a good thing.