Humans are naturally willing for success, for recognition, for superiority. And it is what keeps us developing our reality. That nature gets blocked when a certain way of behaving is imposed towards economic freedom. You can become popular and get recognition but you will not see yourself in a different social position despite your effort.
Who would economically want to be a manager if there is not going to be any mopnetarian difference? Having to deal with mare responsabilities than others because I suppose there should always be someone to set the paths. Am I wrong? And socialism defends this position because even in that system a president is required. Some people also become parasites because there will be a government to sustain al the citizens although some will not contribute to the nation wealth. It is also utopian because everyone thinks individually. Everything we do is for our own satisfaction although throughout our actions we can contribute to others satisfacción and happiness. But even philanthropists do all kind of social work because it fills them too, it makes them feel good.
We should also have present that it is not essentially a political system, it is the result of a introspective analisys of a philosopher. A philosophy deals with abstract ideas, a philosopher desings a ideal world but it does not actually implies that it fits into reality. It would be 'ideal' (perfect) to have a society without disaggregation but if we were all equal we would not be unique and have preferences. We would not be able to test pleasure because we could not meet sadness. The differences are the via to happiness.
The great majority of the opposition to socialism do not really understand what the term means. They hear socialism or communism and just know that its bad. They do not understand what the system is truly intended to accomplish. Socialism was most widely used by the church originally. The church would take donations from the community and re-allocate them to people and programs that helped the poor and starving. That is what socialism is really about. Those that have, helping the have-nots through a middle man like a church or government.
Socialism is viable. When the government takes a large role in order to privde what is best for its citizens, that is socialism. There are many countries that support socialistic practices, like Canada and Norway, and their countries are not just doing okay, but simply thriving. They have some of the best qualities of life in the world.
They say Christianity would be great if it were every tried and I think the same could be said about socialism and capitalism. Either could be viable if it were ever really tried without the greed that gets in the way and causes the system to be compromised so that it only benefits a few.
Socialism is less effective than capitalism; not only has this been shown in the ascendancy of the US post Cold War, but it has been seen countless times in developing nations around the world. China as a centrally planned state floundered - until they began liberalizing their economy and allowing free market forces to take hold.
Socialism is viable. Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. There is a definite need for socialism in our society or we would have abolish it a long time ago. So I think that socialism is very relevant.