'Socialism desires that the ownership and management of land, capital, and public services should be placed under social control, instead of being in the hands of individual capitalists or joint-stock companies "with neither a body to be kicked or a soul to be damend."'
(S.F. Markham, A History of Socialism, New York : Macmillan ; London : Black, 1931, page 1).Comment The text from which the above quotation has been taken seems reliable ; a 'history of socialism' by an author who, although partial to his subject, gives as straightforward an exposition as it could be wanted. He did not avoid certain pitfalls inherent in the 'ideology', nor nor did he introduce anything in the character of deliberate disinformation — (the latter sorts of phenonenon seeming frequent with the latter-day 'socialist').
1) "Socialism desires, etc". 'Socialism' is an abstraction and not a person and "it" cannot desire anything at all. A small inaccuracy but seems rather typical. of the "logic" usually involved.
2) That "ownership and management of land, capital, and public services should be placed under social control" does not tell us what 'social control' is to be. There have to be some individuals somewhere for any control over land, capital, and public services to be possible.
Anything might lurk behind such vague propositions. Some deluded fanatics might fit, unawares, some bigger crooks' purposes. This 'ideology' has ever since 1917, more so after Lenin, been the domain of masters of deceit : it does not seem inclined simply to disappear (confer the publications out there).
Anybody's grievance over anything at all and at any place at all may be used for speaking about justice, except that this plan has not been known to bring much justice anywhere and much the contrary. Anyone with ample finance might find it fit for causing trouble somewhere, to his own ends (as was the case in Russia 1917).
The Communist, or 'socialist', could not have been 100% wrong all the time ; before 1917 the scene was different. Note that some of the problems from which the revolution stemmed no longer exist. Note that Lenin et al had in 1917-20 etc. failed miserably on economics — that was why the New Economic Policy was needed that had nothing new in it.
Some parts of this "philosophy" are hopelessly out-of-date by now. But there seems to be some kind of cult of deluded fanatics who cling to it — assisting and assisted by any actual or perceived wrongs somewhere, who confound ideas of justice with fallacies that had been sometimes proposed to solve injustice.Note : This entry is not a defense of 'capitalism', or anybody's imperialism, or somebody's nepotism, etc.
The entire argument throughout the history has for the most part consisted of pitting an obscureness against a vagueness (with the circa 150-million-dead statistic during the 20th century, which some truly impartial visitor from some other planet, for a made-up example, might find not surprising, looking on the principles and "philosophy" involved.)