All about socialism you wanted to know and feared to ask

[GhostHunter]

Recently I've become more and more interested in regards to Socialism. Issue is, I live in America and anytime I ask for further explination my questions get shot down with post-USSR paranoia. So I've come here, looking for answers to a few questions:

First, my definition of Socialism is as follows, feel free to correct me:

A state that eliminates private enterprise based upon governmental control of production and progression. Payment to the proletarian is the same as a Capitalist state, except instead of means of exploitation income is decided by personal work/contribution amounts/efforts. Also, the government is the people, thus the society progresses with a complete democratic mentality.

I'm aware of how tedious re-answering these questions are, but I appreciate the clarification:

1) Bankruptcy is commonplace in Capitalism; it allows businesses that have become out-of-date, or out-of-touch with their products or buyers to bluntly put, 'die.' My question is, since this tends to allow 'better' corporations to prosper how can a government-run business under Socialism be as good, considering the weaker links in the chain will never go bankrupt if they're run by the state?

2) Socialism ties into Communism (with Marx's progression from A to B, if I recall), but a Socialistic regime could support itself for however long without moving into Communism, correct?

3) In all honesty, could Socialism be as successful as a Capitalist counterpart?

4) Are there any examples of Socialism? Yes, I'm aware that there have never been any full-fledge attempts, but my father recently brought-up Conrail, an American business. Apparently, all the Northwestern railroads were going bankrupt, and the American government set-up Conrail under their control. A few years later Conrail was making billions.

5) What else should I know? I desire to become a Socialist, but before hand I would like to obtain more information, so I can back-up myself in arguements.

There might be more later on, but this is all at the moment. Thanks for the help in advance.

EDIT: I'd appreciate it if starting off only Socialists/Communists/Marxists answered these, I'm not looking for a PRP whorish anti-everything-Marx debate. Least not until I can kick ass too.  ;D

[Edit by the forum's resident communist: Read my full reply here]

[Dude_Doc]

A state that eliminates private enterprise based upon governmental control of production and progression.

It isn't the government that decides the progress, but always the people. The state is only a tool, nothing more.

Payment to the proletarian is the same as a Capitalist state, except instead of means of exploitation income is decided by personal work/contribution amounts/efforts.

Yes, that is correct. In Socialism, there will still be some scales between people, there will be those who are poorer and those who are richer, but no one will ever end up on the streets, without food, water, free healthcare and free education.

Besides this, because a Socialist state is more a will of the people, the will to work will probably also rise as the people have accepted to live in this society - thus, there is a chance that there won't be any scales at all because everyone is willing to work for a better society.

Also, the government is the people, thus the society progresses with a complete democratic mentality.

Exactly. Democracy is very important, because what is Socialism if not the will of the people?

1) Bankruptcy is commonplace in Capitalism; it allows businesses that have become out-of-date, or out-of-touch with their products or buyers to bluntly put, 'die.' My question is, since this tends to allow 'better' corporations to prosper how can a government-run business under Socialism be as good, considering the weaker links in the chain will never go bankrupt if they're run by the state?

Bankruptcy happens because the business don't make any money. It depends on what those so called weak links are - and if they benefit the people. Maybe there are more efficent ways of providing the services/products?

2) Socialism ties into Communism (with Marx's progression from A to B, if I recall), but a Socialistic regime could support itself for however long without moving into Communism, correct?

Yes, that would be true - but in essence it's goal would be to move into Communism. Socialism is considered to be a transission state between itself and Communism. I also believe it depends on how good people are living, if all services are runned as they should and so on.

3) In all honesty, could Socialism be as successful as a Capitalist counterpart?

Oh, I believe it would surpass it by decades. While capitalism strives to find every hole, every corruption, every bypass to help others while benefit itself it will never realize the very flaw - that it's being gives rise to corruption, to tefth, to murder and war, poverty and many other things. In capitalism, a few have the power to dictate and to order, while in Socialism, everybody has that power. It has that power because no one will have to worry about not being smart enough to survive the constant threats of giant corporations who only seek personal profit. No one will suffer from a wound without getting it healed, no one will fear that one's ideas are a copy of someone else, and that one might get sued for it.

Socialism uses the most effective ways of distributing new technology and knowledge. No longer do we have to pay - we have utilized ways of getting them, technology using technology in the best ways possible. No longer will we have one thousand different cellphones and wish that you had all those capabilities in a single cellphone. No longer do you have to buy a completely new and different computer in order to run a single program - they are all used in symphony the best ways possible to make the everyday life as easy as possible for everyone.

In Socialism, ideas will be tried and retried without the need for important money. In a true Communist state, you could go on testing an idea until it succeeded, without having to worry about having a boss after you, demanding success within unreasonable time.

Socialism isn't only the best application - it is the ultimate freedom for everyone.

4) Are there any examples of Socialism? Yes, I'm aware that there have never been any full-fledge attempts, but my father recently brought-up Conrail, an American business. Apparently, all the Northwestern railroads were going bankrupt, and the American government set-up Conrail under their control. A few years later Conrail was making billions.

Socialism lives with those who want change and justice. Martin Luther King Jr, John Lennon, JFK and Robert Kennedy - they all wanted justice and equality. The reason you don't have to work like a prisoner in Siberia is because the demonstrations and the work of Socialists - people who forced the rich and powerful to change because the majority refused to live like slaves.

Then, there are personal Socialism. You are a Socialist when you help someone, when you help your friend with something, when you help your family. You are social - thus Socialism. Socialism is built on will, on spirit rather than benefitting on everything possible.

Except this, I believe that Buddhist monks live in a Socialist environment. There are recorded findings that even Christian monks lived in Communist societies where all shared.

5) What else should I know? I desire to become a Socialist, but before hand I would like to obtain more information, so I can back-up myself in arguements.

Well, the most important thing is to always keep an open mind. Don't just listen to one argument - get informed. If you don't know, find that information and see if it is correct.

Wikipedia is a good start, it has almost everything. I'll give you some links:

http://www.marxists.org

(A site explaining most things about Socialism and Marxism. Worth reading.)

http://www.wikipedia.org

(The ultimate database. Almost everything can be found here.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

(Quicklink to Communism in wikipedia - check out the other links to find out more.)

[gunner154]

I just read a bit. From what I understand (which probably means I don't), in communism, private ownership is abolished. And it's ALL private ownership, which means even personal items are public. Computers, handphones, mattresses, homes, toothbrushes and towels included?

[GUNWOUNDS]

I never understood how Socialism and Communism models handle

[GhostHunter]

Yeah well, how about we ignore that, 'cause 'Wounds is just looking for a fight.

[Caid Ivik]

Exploitation and corruption are terms nearly impossible to fit in socialism. However, not because its laws are turning people to some state of honesty, but because there is no place left for it. State takes full control over financial flow, thus private exploitation and corruption in bureaucracy is replaced by legalized form: ultimate taxes, term slowly turning its official name to common property. Creation of "common property" is ment to destratify, equalize people and expects, that this creation will become a social norm, a custom. Custom-based state doesn't even need to be legalized, it is based on social norms and quasi voluntarity.

Thus state will slowly fade out and society enters the bright future of communism. However, question is, why would someone support sacrifice of his own will and power, if he is aware, that others, which possessed less than himself, may abuse it (if we take that anybody and anything is capable of it)? Why should we believe, that somebody understand these thing more than us ourselves?  And primarily, do we understand ourselves enough to change this social thinking? For further questions see these:

de Montesquieu - Spirit of Laws

Mill - On Liberty

de Tocqueville - Democracy of America

Huxley - End of Civilization

Just a thought, first three books were written before the socialist movement emerged in practical politics. In 19th century these questions were very actual...

[gunner154]

So what does the abolishing of private ownership really mean and what are the limits?

[Anathema]

I have another point I'd like some people to answer.

How will socialsim recognise sincere effort?

There are always people who are not satisfied with a mediocre job like garbage collecting or janitory work. These people study for years in their field of interest, wether it be medicine, law, science etc, and IMO they deserve to better of then the garbage man (though not necessarily as better off as they are today). It's a fact of life that recognition is a good reason for many people to persue a certain carreer. Obviously you would get respect from some people, but you've got to admit that's somewhat hollow. How would you like it if you had spent years in college to become a doctor, then take on a heavy responsibilty every day you do your work, only to live in the same kind of house as a garbage man and with the same social status?

[gunner154]

Get robots to be the garbage men, mayhaps ;)

[Edric O]

Right, here we go. I'll answer Gunwounds's short question first:

I never understood how Socialism and Communism models handle the class stratification between Heart Surgeons and Garbage Collectors.

The Heart Surgeon will demand more prestige and benefits and salary than the Garbage Collector.  So how can you ever have true equality and elimination of class stratification?  And good luck getting the Surgeon to give up his private property under the communist model.

As far as socialism is concerned, that's very simple: heart surgeons get more money than garbage collectors. In fact, heart surgeons would be among the richest people in socialism, and garbage collectors would be among the poorest. Keep in mind that, as I already explained in another topic, SOCIALISM DOES NOT GIVE EVERY MAN THE SAME REWARD REGARDLESS OF HIS WORK. Socialism rewards hard work. People who work more, receive more. The difference between rich and poor is much, much smaller than in capitalism, but it still exists.

Only communism does away with social stratification completely. And it solves the "heart surgeons would be among the richest people in socialism, and garbage collectors" problem by ensuring that there are no more (full-time) garbage collectors. There are at least two ways to achieve this (and perhaps there are also others I haven't thought about):

1. Make the garbage collection process fully automated. Technology is a major factor in social progress (for example, the Industrial Revolution was a major factor in the move from feudalism to capitalism), so it's reasonable to expect that the move from socialism to communism will also rely on some technological progress.

2. Eliminate the job of full-time garbage collector and require everyone to be a part-time garbage collector for 1 day every year. After all, being a garbage collector doesn't call for any special skill. And one day per year isn't much to ask.

But i guess thats the whole point of the Communist and Socialist models... they have to be voluntary for it to work. And seeing as how people in real life dont volunteer for squat... i just dont see it ever happening.

Actually, people volunteer for a lot of things. And there are a lot of dangerous or otherwise unpleasant jobs that people take only out of a sense of altruism - look at firefighters, for example. But that's beside the point, since socialism and communism don't need the support of everyone in order to work. They just need the support of the majority, like any other democratic system.

[Edric O]

I have another point I'd like some people to answer.

How will socialsim recognise sincere effort?

There are always people who are not satisfied with a mediocre job like garbage collecting or janitory work. These people study for years in their field of interest, wether it be medicine, law, science etc, and IMO they deserve to better of then the garbage man (though not necessarily as better off as they are today). It's a fact of life that recognition is a good reason for many people to persue a certain carreer. Obviously you would get respect from some people, but you've got to admit that's somewhat hollow. How would you like it if you had spent years in college to become a doctor, then take on a heavy responsibilty every day you do your work, only to live in the same kind of house as a garbage man and with the same social status?

Actually, you've answered your question yourself: These people study for years in their field of interest. They are easily differentiated from garbage men (for example) through the fact that they went to college, while the garbage men didn't.

In socialism, one of the major factors (perhaps the single greatest factor) in determining your pay is what kind of education was necessary for you to have your current job. In other words, people who went to college get more money than people who didn't (and since all education is free, the only people who won't go to college will be the ones who don't want to or just aren't up to the challenge).

[Caid Ivik]

I think in one thing you are very close to original Marx: technology is needed for social progress. This is one of the first things I was amazed of in marxism, altough if we take this materialistically, technology is the highest organization of matter, so it would follow this logic. However, take ancient slavonic (or to be strict: venedian) tribes, for example. There was only minimal stratification in their tribes (only shamans and kolduns had a specific state, altough they didn't form a higher caste as celtic druids or aryan brahmans), before hordes of Goths and Huns came there were no signs of state or slavery. How could this be? They had no automated harvesters...

[GUNWOUNDS]

However, take ancient slavonic (or to be strict: venedian) tribes, for example. There was only minimal stratification in their tribes (only shamans and kolduns had a specific state, altough they didn't form a higher caste as celtic druids or aryan brahmans), before hordes of Goths and Huns came there were no signs of state or slavery. How could this be? They had no automated harvesters...

Those tribes only had minimal stratification because they didnt have highly stratified work positions such as Heart Surgeon and Garbage Collector.

[Edric O]

I think in one thing you are very close to original Marx: technology is needed for social progress.

Of course. When you get down to it, marxism is based on very common sense premises. :)

This is one of the first things I was amazed of in marxism, altough if we take this materialistically, technology is the highest organization of matter, so it would follow this logic. However, take ancient slavonic (or to be strict: venedian) tribes, for example. There was only minimal stratification in their tribes (only shamans and kolduns had a specific state, altough they didn't form a higher caste as celtic druids or aryan brahmans), before hordes of Goths and Huns came there were no signs of state or slavery. How could this be? They had no automated harvesters...

What do you mean "how could this be"? They lived in a social system called tribalism, or, sometimes, "primitive communism" (precisely because it was so egalitarian). Marx talked a lot about this "primitive communism", especially because it proved that social stratification and private property were only recent inventions (barely 5000 years old), not inherent characteristics of "human nature".

For the record, here is a list of transitions facilitated by technological revolutions:

The move from tribalism to slaveryism* was facilitated by the invention of agriculture.

The move from slaveryism to feudalism was facilitated by the political, cultural and technological collapse of the Ancient World (a catastrophic decline in technology can bring down the old system too; if we suddenly lost our modern technology, capitalism would also fall - but it certainly wouldn't be replaced by anything like socialism).

The move from feudalism to capitalism was facilitated by the Industrial Revolution.

And the technological revolution of personal computers and the internet is a good candidate for the move from capitalism to socialism.

Keep in mind, however, that a technological revolution alone is usually not enough to bring down a system and put another in its place.

[* yes, yes, I know "slaveryism" isn't a proper English word, but the English language seems to be missing a word to describe this system, even though most other languages have one - for example, the French call it "sclavagisme"]

[Edric O]

Those tribes only had minimal stratification because they didnt have highly stratified work positions such as Heart Surgeon and Garbage Collector.  Probably everyone in the tribe had the same simplistic work.

Exactly. This is, in fact, precisely the same explanation Marx gives for the egalitarianism of early human societies.

[Anathema]

Edric, what exactly is this "slaveryism" you're talking about? You mean like, the ancient civilizations built around slave labour?

Feudalism I think has probably existed as long as agriculture, when people abandoned the nomadic lifestyle. Peasants, anchored to their land, can't protect themselves or their land from bandits by themself. They swear loyalty to a local strong man (or a group of men) and pay tribute to him, or pick up arms for him when asked. So my guess is that it predates the feudalism of the dark ages by thousends of years.

[Edric O]

Edric, what exactly is this "slaveryism" you're talking about? You mean like, the ancient civilizations built around slave labour?

Yes. As opposed to serf labour in feudalism and wage labour in capitalism. As you probably know, the master-slave relation was very different from the lord-serf relation.

Feudalism I think has probably existed as long as agriculture, when people abandoned the nomadic lifestyle. Peasants, anchored to their land, can't protect themselves or their land from bandits by themself. They swear loyalty to a local strong man (or a group of men) and pay tribute to him, or pick up arms for him when asked. So my guess is that it predates the feudalism of the dark ages by thousends of years.

As I said above, you probably already know the differences between the master-slave and lord-serf relations. A slave wasn't a peasant bound to his land and bound to serve his lord by an oath of loyalty. He was the property of his master. Serfs had some rights. Slaves had none. That is the major point that differentiates "slaveryism" from feudalism. Then there is also the relative urbanization of the Ancient World, as opposed to the Medieval World. Slaveryism did not begin with peasants swearing loyalty to warlords for protection. It began with the development of city-states.

[Edric O]

Now, going back to the issue of wealth distribution under socialism, I think this graph shows it best:

Notice that, under capitalism, the rich are VERY rich, and the poorest people are below the "poverty line" (defined as the minimum amount of wealth necessary for a decent life - proper food, drinking water, health care, and a home). Under socialism, there is still a difference between rich and poor, but it is much smaller; the rich are not very rich, and even the poorest of the poor can afford a decent life.

[Caid Ivik]

Venedic tribes weren't apes, they were already active in agriculture, used iron and there are rumors they had even own alphabet. And this is no truly ancient time, we talk about era of late Roman Empire. Simply, it was a developed society which retained some kind of democracy. And same we can find for example between ancient Jews, which were electing Judges only if there was a threat. Or what about Japan? There was no slavery as well.

[Caid Ivik]

Notice that, under capitalism, the rich are VERY rich, and the poorest people are below the "poverty line" (defined as the minimum amount of wealth necessary for a decent life - proper food, drinking water, health care, and a home). Under socialism, there is still a difference between rich and poor, but it is much smaller; the rich are not very rich, and even the poorest of the poor can afford a decent life.

On, for example, Haiti there is a capitalism, and nobody is rich. Are you jealous? Go there and talk them about socialism. Wealth is production of work, and if there is no sufficient, self-motivated or organized work, there is also no wealth. Standard equation.

[GUNWOUNDS]

On, for example, Haiti there is a capitalism, and nobody is rich.

I am sure Jean-Bertrand Aristide was rich.

[Anathema]

I know the difference between the two relationships Edric, I just disagreed that slaveryism evolved into feudalism. Feudalism arises in almost all situations of anarchy, wether it be pre historic farmlands or post Roman Europe.

I think that with feudalism you meant the institutionalised form introduced by Charlemagne, but that's different. Charlemagne realised that feudalism could actually be a powerful tool, so he divided newly conquered land into pieces and gave it to his vassals. The local peasants sweared loyalty to the lowly vassal rather then to the Frankish kings, loyalties were always on a local scale in true feudalist states.

[Edric O]

I will now answer GhostHunter's original post - which is, after all, the whole point of this topic:

Recently I've become more and more interested in regards to Socialism. Issue is, I live in America and anytime I ask for further explination my questions get shot down with post-USSR paranoia.

Yes, that tends to happen a lot in the United States, unfortunetaly. Sometimes the same people who think socialism is something evil from Russia will actually agree with many socialist ideas if you explain them without using words like "socialism" or "communism".

So I've come here, looking for answers to a few questions:

First, my definition of Socialism is as follows, feel free to correct me:

A state that eliminates private enterprise based upon governmental control of production and progression. Payment to the proletarian is the same as a Capitalist state, except instead of means of exploitation income is decided by personal work/contribution amounts/efforts. Also, the government is the people, thus the society progresses with a complete democratic mentality.

That is correct. I gave a (brief) description of socialism in a topic I started some time ago: What is socialism?

I won't copy & paste that whole post here, but I think I should re-iterate the main point: In the simplest terms, there are 3 main features of a socialist system:

1. A planned economy (i.e. public ownership over the means of production)

2. A democratic state (i.e. the state must be the tool of the people)

3. Certain basic standards of living (food, drinking water, housing, healthcare and education) guaranteed freely and equally to all citizens.

I'm aware of how tedious re-answering these questions are, but I appreciate the clarification:

1) Bankruptcy is commonplace in Capitalism; it allows businesses that have become out-of-date, or out-of-touch with their products or buyers to bluntly put, 'die.' My question is, since this tends to allow 'better' corporations to prosper how can a government-run business under Socialism be as good, considering the weaker links in the chain will never go bankrupt if they're run by the state?

That is where the democratic nature of the socialist state comes in. If state officials and economic planners are elected by the people, or if the people have at least the power to remove them from office, the officials will have a strong incentive to do a good job (because if they don't, they will be voted out of office). In capitalism, the market keeps private companies efficient, because an inefficient company will go bankrupt. In socialism, democracy keeps the economic planning efficient, because inefficient planners and managers will be removed from office.

And that is why democracy is absolutely essential to socialism: Without democracy, there is no incentive for planners and managers to do their job properly, and you eventually end up with the kind of inefficiency that plagued the Soviet Union in its final years.

2) Socialism ties into Communism (with Marx's progression from A to B, if I recall), but a Socialistic regime could support itself for however long without moving into Communism, correct?

First of all, not all socialists want socialism to eventually turn into communism; many disagree with the ideas behind communism or don't think communism is possible. Those socialists who do want socialism to be replaced by communism (at one point or another) are the ones who call themselves communists. Thus, all communists are socialists (because they want socialism to replace capitalism), but not all socialists are communists (because many socialists don't want communism to replace socialism).

Therefore, different socialists have different opinions on whether socialism can or cannot last forever. Communists say that, as the people grow increasingly accustomed to have democratic control over most affairs of state, they will demand more and more such control, and thus take more and more things out of the state's hands and into their own collective hands, until the state no longer exists. That is how socialism is supposed to turn into communism (the "fading away of the state").

3) In all honesty, could Socialism be as successful as a Capitalist counterpart?

Judging by the performance of the various partially socialist systems we've had so far, I'd say it certainly could (and would). Social democratic countries have (and always had) the highest standards of living, while the partially socialist planned economies of the USSR and other Comecon countries had the highest sustained growth rates in history until the mid-1960's (when the lack of democratic control over the bureaucracy finally began to take its toll - and things went downhill from there).

4) Are there any examples of Socialism? Yes, I'm aware that there have never been any full-fledge attempts, but my father recently brought-up Conrail, an American business. Apparently, all the Northwestern railroads were going bankrupt, and the American government set-up Conrail under their control. A few years later Conrail was making billions.

There are countless examples of state-owned firms being amazingly successful and efficient, and also many examples of state-owned firms being highly inefficient. The point of socialism is that the planners are kept efficient by democratic control: if they do a bad job, the people vote against them in the next elections. When you have planners that are not under democratic control, the whole thing is a lottery: You might end up with incredibly good plans and a booming economy, or horribly bad ones and an economic collapse. If you play this lottery enough times, your luck will run out eventually. That is what happened to the Soviet Union. In the case of state-owned firms in capitalist countries, a lot depends on how their management is selected (or elected), and its degree of accountability to the population. These factors are usually different for each state-owned firm.

5) What else should I know? I desire to become a Socialist, but before hand I would like to obtain more information, so I can back-up myself in arguements.

The trouble with most socialist websites on the internet is that they assume their readers already know quite a lot about politics and socialism, so they don't bother to explain the basics. This is a problem I've been wanting to fix for quite a long time, by creating my own website that would serve as an introduction to socialism and communism... but I've never given that the attention it deserves, so it's only about half finished at the moment.

So, first, tell Edric to get a move on with his damn project already. ;D

Now, the two best socialist (or, to be more exact, marxist) sites I would recommend are:

www.marxist.com - presents a marxist view of current world events

www.marxists.org - the Marxists Internet Archive, a huge database containing just about all the works of just about all the marxist writers who ever lived; like marxist.com, however, this site isn't very helpful as an introduction to a new socialist (Karl Marx's writing style doesn't make for an easy read, and he never bothered to summarize his thousands of pages' worth of writing into a concise volume)

Wage Labour and Capital would be a good place to start. Keep in mind that any argument for socialism begins with an analysis of capitalism - before you can propose a new system, you must analyze the present one and determine what is wrong with it. That is what Marx did.

And, of course, if you have any (more) questions, feel free to post them here or IM me. :)

[GhostHunter]

If state officials and economic planners are elected by the people, or if the people have at least the power to remove them from office, the officials will have a strong incentive to do a good job (because if they don't, they will be voted out of office). In capitalism, the market keeps private companies efficient, because an inefficient company will go bankrupt. In socialism, democracy keeps the economic planning efficient, because inefficient planners and managers will be removed from office.

This is what I've never understood. Though that seems logical, we're looking at a state-run everything, correct? Well that means every company will be government-run, and thus in-between the pure hordes of companies there can still be unseen inefficiency that takes away from that corporations production without anyone ever taking note, due to the pure amount of businesses, right?

There are countless examples of state-owned firms being amazingly successful and efficient...

I'll look these up, but could you give me a few examples off-hand? And no, they don't have to be American.

So, first, tell Edric to get a move on with his damn project already

Work on your God damn site already.  :P

Question:

(To Edric specifically, though others can answer) Before the NEP (New Economic Policy) was Lenin actually going towards Communism? I recall you mentioning something about Lenin skipping a step, or trying to rush some aspect. What do you think would of been the result had Lenin lived, and Stalin never had come to power?

What are/were some Social Democratic governments?

[nemafakei]

"But i guess thats the whole point of the Communist and Socialist models... they have to be voluntary for it to work."

That's certainly not the case for socialism, and, depending on your definition, not necessarily true. What is it that needs to be voluntary, exactly?

Regarding actual examples, I've said this before... don't consider countries in isolation. Always look at how their trade is conducted, always ask yourself how much a population's quality of life is a result of its government, its people, its trading partners, and other factors.

For example, people might look at Cuba's pseudocommunism and say 'oh, everyone's very poor there, so this system is bad' (I'm not saying it is or it isn't). Why are they poor? It's at least partly because Cuba's most obvious and important trading partner has had an embargo on the country for decades.

Regarding the garbage collector question... assuming you can't do it with fancy gadgets, what's wrong with just paying people well to do dirty jobs?

"There are countless examples of state-owned firms being amazingly successful and efficient."

A lot of national industries in Britain have been ruined by privatisation, notably British Rail, for an actual comparison.

By successful, I don't know if it was *profitable*... but that's not the point.

"What are/were some Social Democratic governments?"

UK, Labour, 1945? Of course, to move into actual socialism takes a while. So they started with creating our welfare state, such as the National Health Service, among other things.