40 replies to this topic

[Forever21]

View on Vimeo.

[RunterBeaker]

View on Vimeo.

The only thing that has "hit the fan" is this guys reasoning ability. He decided he wanted to be a "socialist" a long time ago, he then had to try and cram is ideology into economic reasoning. I'm sure many of his colleges in academia including my professors would give him an F minus.

He is making everything sound way too simple and leaving a lot out. He talks about wages as if there is one wage, one job. Yes, unskilled labor wages have gone down, but at the same time they've gone up in other poorer nations due to trade with us. Skilled labor wages have gone up as a result, because we export stuff that relies on skilled labor more than unskilled.

The thing with these guys is they see stuff they don't like being produced, stuff they would not buy, and then they say "oh look how bad capitalism is, we don't need so and so" . Well guess what, capitalism is about freedom and choice and protecting these freedoms. Nobody has to buy anything they don't want and nobody has to work for low wages.

Another thought. There are all sorts of bad drivers on our freeway system here in California. If some drivers aren't paying attention and cause a collision or shoot out of their window, you don't blame the freeway, or the car do you? Of course not, it's the person behind the wheel controlling the actions.

Edited by RunterBeaker, 21 February 2009 - 07:25 PM.

[Ben]

I don't have any comment on the video but he's oratory style is really engrossing. It's like looking at a car accident, I know it's rude to stare and that I'm not being very nice, but I can't look away.

[Forever21]

lol

here's a clip from his dvd

[william7]

Nice post Forever21! I liked much of the professor's reasoning. The Republicans and the capitalists are, most obviously, a pack of wicked master criminals, and the liberals a pack of fools. I wish he would have talked about abolishing our system of money and replacing it with a system of communal sharing of everything with production geared to the needs of the masses and not for the profit of a few privileged groups in society.

My favorite socialist organization is the Socialist Labor Party (SLP). I feel they have about the best program of all the socialist organizations I've seen. Daniel De Leon, an early leader of the SLP, said Socialism "is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. — That is socialism, nothing short of that."

May be the world will have to go through a period of adjustment under Socialist Industrial Unionism before transitioning into pure Christian communism with a nonpunitive legal system and immortality as its objective.

Edited by elijah3, 03 March 2009 - 09:32 PM.

[Forever21]

I do not share his views.

[JLL]

Nice post Forever21! I liked much of the professor's reasoning. The Republicans and the capitalists are, most obviously, a pack of wicked master criminals, and the liberals a pack of fools. I wish he would have talked about abolishing our system of money and replacing it with a system of communal sharing of everything with production geared to the needs of the masses and not for the profit of a few privileged groups in society.

My favorite socialist organization is the Socialist Labor Party (SLP). I feel they have about the best program of all the socialist organizations I've seen. Daniel De Leon, an early leader of the SLP, said Socialism "is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. — That is socialism, nothing short of that."

May be the world will have to go through a period of adjustment under Socialist Industrial Unionism before transitioning into pure Christian communism with a nonpunitive legal system and immortality as its objective.

If your picture is anything to go by, one would think you'd seen enough socialist states fail to know better. Also, that description of socialism doesn't really fit into the kind of socialism where everything is controlled by the state; in fact, it sounds more like communism or anarcho-syndicalism.

[william7]

one would think you'd seen enough socialist states fail

You mean so-called socialist states don't you? The Socialist Labor Party and other socialist organizations will quickly tell you that true socialism has never been achieved. See, for example, http://www.slp.org/p...ers/is_cuba.pdf. Those failed so-called socialist states still had an upper echelon of elite bureaucrats who oppressed the workers through wage slavery backed by a military/police force. This was not democratic socialism.

WHAT SOCIALISM IS - & IS NOT

Socialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a closed party-run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.

"Socialism," as the American Socialist Daniel De Leon defined it, "is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. That is socialism, nothing short of that." And we might add, nothing more than that!

Remember: If it does not fit this description, it is not socialism—no matter who says different. Those who claim that socialism existed and failed in places like Russia and China simply do not know the facts.

Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives—the industries, services and natural resources—are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time.

SOCIALISM NEVER TRIED

Socialism has never existed. It did not exist in the old U.S.S.R., and it does not exist in China. Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives—the industries, services and natural resources—are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time.

http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

Possibly the right conditions will emerge in this current economic crisis for the development of a truly socialist society dedicated to real human progress. The working class and the poor masses may see the light and make it work.

[JLL]

So would your socialist state allow people to build and work in factories where there is a clear division between owners and workers, with the former paying wages to the latter for their labour?

[william7]

So would your socialist state allow people to build and work in factories where there is a clear division between owners and workers, with the former paying wages to the latter for their labour?

No. The whole purpose of true socialism is to put an end to wage slavery by putting workers in democratic control of the means of production.

[JLL]

So would your socialist state allow people to build and work in factories where there is a clear division between owners and workers, with the former paying wages to the latter for their labour?

No. The whole purpose of true socialism is to put an end to wage slavery by putting workers in democratic control of the means of production.

Right, so not only do you want to live your life as you wish, you also want to tell others how to live theirs. Meaning that you won't be satisfied with your own community where people are in control of the means of production, you also want to prohibit communities where one person owns the means and hires other people to work for them.

And this will to control people, of course, is in the heart of socialism.

[william7]

Right, so not only do you want to live your life as you wish, you also want to tell others how to live theirs.

Only where it involves prohibiting those others from committing economic and political tyranny over the majority.

Meaning that you won't be satisfied with your own community where people are in control of the means of production, you also want to prohibit communities where one person owns the means and hires other people to work for them.

The objective of world socialism is to replace capitalism with socialism through education, organization, and democratic means in order to improve the human condition. http://www.worldsoci...ing_the_wsm.php.

And this will to control people, of course, is in the heart of socialism.

False! The reverse is the case. Capitalism is the economic system that places a few in power over the many and they abuse that power unmercifully. The historical record provides unassailable proof of this that cannot be denied. The goals of the socialists is to prevent this abuse of power through taking away the economic and political power of the few and putting it in the hands of the majority.

[markm]

Capitalism is great at spurring innovation and horrible at distributing wealth. Socialism is great at distributing wealth and horrible at spurring innovation. Neither system is ideal, but I don't pretend to know of a viable alternative. Given capitalism's power of innovation, I'm cautiously optimistic that it will engineer its own successor.

[nowayout]

Capitalism is great at spurring innovation and horrible at distributing wealth. Socialism is great at distributing wealth and horrible at spurring innovation. Neither system is ideal, but I don't pretend to know of a viable alternative. Given capitalism's power of innovation, I'm cautiously optimistic that it will engineer its own successor.

Your optimism exceeds mine. Or rather, if the progression of capitalism over the past couple of decades is any indication, any successor engineered by capitalism is not likely to be more benevolent, equitable, merciful, or environmentally sustainable.

[JLL]

Right, so not only do you want to live your life as you wish, you also want to tell others how to live theirs.

Only where it involves prohibiting those others from committing economic and political tyranny over the majority.

My question was specifically about a group of people who wish to work in a factory owned by one person. Let's say that this group of people lives in one of the communities you've described, but express their wish to leave so that they might do labour work in exchange for getting paid a monthly salary by the owner (who has already left before the group and built his factory). Is this allowed in your dreamworld or not?

False! The reverse is the case. Capitalism is the economic system that places a few in power over the many and they abuse that power unmercifully. The historical record provides unassailable proof of this that cannot be denied. The goals of the socialists is to prevent this abuse of power through taking away the economic and political power of the few and putting it in the hands of the majority.

Define capitalism. If it has anything to do with the state, then I don't support capitalism. What I advocate is a voluntary society and the free market. I urge you to find one example where this has resulted in an abuse of power.

To me, capitalism only says that each person is allowed to own property. How this is evil is beyond me, and how you imagine to live in a world where you cannot own property is ludicrous. Do you not own a share of the food your community produces?

Also, please provide some examples of capitalism - in whichever definition you choose - where it has resulted in the abuse of power, and I will provide you with as many examples where the reason behind this abuse is not capitalism - the ownership of property - but the state.

[synaesthetic]

I like what he is saying, but his example was of intelligent software engineer entrepreneurs, I feel that this type of work-communism works with intelligent people, but try getting a bunch of Fast Food employees involved and I'm pretty sure the company would fail because of incompetence.

[william7]

Socialism is great at distributing wealth and horrible at spurring innovation.

True socialism as envisioned by Karl Marx has never been achieved by any country so it would not be possible to determine how much innovation it spurred. In fact, once true socialism and economic freedom for all is achieved, I'm sure the quantity and quality of innovation will become much greater - bettering the human condition immensely.

Your optimism exceeds mine. Or rather, if the progression of capitalism over the past couple of decades is any indication, any successor engineered by capitalism is not likely to be more benevolent, equitable, merciful, or environmentally sustainable.

I fully agree.

[william7]

My question was specifically about a group of people who wish to work in a factory owned by one person. Let's say that this group of people lives in one of the communities you've described, but express their wish to leave so that they might do labour work in exchange for getting paid a monthly salary by the owner (who has already left before the group and built his factory). Is this allowed in your dreamworld or not?

Of course not! In my dream world, true socialism would completely do away with the need for money. What would those people do with this money they earned from the business owner in a world without money? They wouldn't be able to buy anything from the larger socialist community. The community would meet their needs without payment of any kind.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

http://www.worldsoci...s_socialism.php

Define capitalism. If it has anything to do with the state, then I don't support capitalism.

Glad to have you on board! Everybody knows that big business buys the politicians who make the laws. The professor in the video accurately pointed that out. You don't believe him?

[eternaltraveler]

elijah, you are going to get exactly what you want.

As all unskilled (and a large portion of "skilled") labor is replaced by automation, or 40-60% of all jobs, that additional non-working 40-60% is going to vote for socialism as their only means of support.

Give it another 20-30 years and that number will rise to 100%.

Funny how so few here seem to worry about the consequences of human obsolescence.

edit-typo

Edited by eternaltraveler, 12 July 2010 - 04:07 PM.

[william7]

I like what he is saying, but his example was of intelligent software engineer entrepreneurs, I feel that this type of work-communism works with intelligent people, but try getting a bunch of Fast Food employees involved and I'm pretty sure the company would fail because of incompetence.

I hear what you're saying. The only thing I can think of is that under the real communism of the future everybodies education and skills level will be much greater and at approximately the same level, and the demeaning work such as fast food enterprises require will not exist because of their harmfulness to the population.

[william7]

As all unskilled (and a large portion of "skilled") labor is replaced by automation, or 40-60% of all jobs, that additional none working 40-60% is going to vote for socialism as their only means of support.

Give it 20-30 years; 20-30 and that number will rise to 100%.

I hope the Socialist Labor Party gets voted in. May be I can get out of poverty.

[JLL]

My question was specifically about a group of people who wish to work in a factory owned by one person. Let's say that this group of people lives in one of the communities you've described, but express their wish to leave so that they might do labour work in exchange for getting paid a monthly salary by the owner (who has already left before the group and built his factory). Is this allowed in your dreamworld or not?

Of course not! In my dream world, true socialism would completely do away with the need for money. What would those people do with this money they earned from the business owner in a world without money? They wouldn't be able to buy anything from the larger socialist community. The community would meet their needs without payment of any kind.

How can you speak about economic freedom in one sentence and then deny freedom of choice in another?

You're avoiding the actual question by saying that "nobody will need money", but what if these people that I'm talking about want to use their own currency? Or if that's impossible for you to imagine, how about the owner of the factory pay the workers in food?

There are two scenarios here:

A: People are allowed to choose for themselves and live their lives as they wish, provided that they don't harm other people in doing so (this is the non-aggression principle).

B: People are forced to live in socialist communities where workers own the means of production and are not allowed to use money.

Clearly, you are pushing scenario B, whereas I'm pushing scenario A. Note that scenario A does not exclude scenario B, but the opposite is not true. So your scenario is more restrictive than mine in terms of individual freedom.

Really, what it all boils down to is that you're not happy with living in a your dream community yourself, you effectively want to make sure the rest of the world lives in one too. That to me is incredibly selfish and arrogant. What makes you think you know what is best for other people? If you claim to know it, how can you defend your position when another person says it's in fact the other way around: that he knows what is best for you.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

http://www.worldsoci...s_socialism.php

You do realize that humans are motivated by selfish intentions, don't you? What your ideal world really needs is not just a reformation of the system, it needs a reformation of man.

Glad to have you on board! Everybody knows that big business buys the politicians who make the laws. The professor in the video accurately pointed that out. You don't believe him?

Yes, I do. But the answer to that problem is not to get rid of business, but to get rid of the politicians. I don't believe in the idea of mandatory democracy, which says that whatever the majority decides goes. This is all that democracy is, regardless of whether the decision of the majority is good or evil - and in fact a lot of people would define 'good' and 'evil' as that which is supported or not supported by the majority.

I have no objection to people willingly living in socialist communities where everything is democratic; what I object to is that you want me to live in one. That kind of arrogance is unacceptable.

[Ben]

lol

here's a clip from his dvd

How much does he sound like Dr. Zoidberg?

[Blutarsky]

Who is John Galt?

True socialism as envisioned by Karl Marx has never been achieved by any country so it would not be possible to determine how much innovation it spurred. In fact, once true socialism and economic freedom for all is achieved, I'm sure the quantity and quality of innovation will become much greater - bettering the human condition immensely.

Of course "true" socialism has never been achieved by any country because "true" socialism is based upon faulty dialectical logic, therefore it ends are unachievable. It's a fundamentally flawed philosophical system. IOW, a wonderful idea with zero potential for practical execution and sustainability. As with other "sunshine and lollipop" theories, socialism ignores the fundamental human tendencies towards competition and innovation. If we were dealing with robots socialism would be perfect.

Socialism: Where the apathetic masses subsist at the government teet and the prime movers refuse to participate and innovation stagnates. Sounds wonderful...

I hope the Socialist Labor Party gets voted in. May be I can get out of poverty.

How about getting off you ass and producing something of value that others will pay for?

Edited by Blutarsky, 06 March 2009 - 03:45 PM.

[william7]

How can you speak about economic freedom in one sentence and then deny freedom of choice in another?

You're avoiding the actual question by saying that "nobody will need money", but what if these people that I'm talking about want to use their own currency? Or if that's impossible for you to imagine, how about the owner of the factory pay the workers in food?

Because when workers are wage slaves their freedom of choice is drastically limited. Socialism would increase the workers freedoms and produce a better quality of life for all in the process.

I suspect you see yourself as a person who might benefit greatly in a capitalist society and desire to keep this avenue open. I remember the black prisoners I use to do hard time with in the joint. Many of them were extremely psychopathic and extremely racist. They would also exploit their own race quickly to get ahead in the game. On one occasion a black guy, who fit all these characteristics, was my neighbor and we would talk civilly about prisoners rights and legal practice on a regular basis. One day I showed him some of the Socialist Labor Party's (SLP) newspapers called the People and explained to him what the SLP's goals were. He told me straight out he was not for it. Even though he was doing a lot of time in prison and buried in the hole for serious assaults on staff, he had plans to give back that time, get out and do some pimping and drug dealing so he could make enough money to invest in legitimate business. He wanted to be right up there with those rich white people and it didn't make any difference how many black (or white) lives he stepped on or ruined to get there. Many of these black gangsters thought this way. Their goals were to get on top of the hill. They didn't want to see that hill leveled.

There are two scenarios here:

A: People are allowed to choose for themselves and live their lives as they wish, provided that they don't harm other people in doing so (this is the non-aggression principle).

B: People are forced to live in socialist communities where workers own the means of production and are not allowed to use money.

Clearly, you are pushing scenario B, whereas I'm pushing scenario A. Note that scenario A does not exclude scenario B, but the opposite is not true. So your scenario is more restrictive than mine in terms of individual freedom.

I don't see it that way. When you exploit people and make their lives more difficult, you're restricting their freedom. Greedily exploiting people through wage slavery is aggression in my book.

Really, what it all boils down to is that you're not happy with living in a your dream community yourself, you effectively want to make sure the rest of the world lives in one too. That to me is incredibly selfish and arrogant. What makes you think you know what is best for other people? If you claim to know it, how can you defend your position when another person says it's in fact the other way around: that he knows what is best for you.

This can easily be reversed. Capitalists certainly believe they know what's best for the working class. And they certainly are selfish and arrogant about it.

You do realize that humans are motivated by selfish intentions, don't you? What your ideal world really needs is not just a reformation of the system, it needs a reformation of man.

I agree. But I see socialism as providing the necessary basis to bring in the religious program needed to put an end to greed and selfishness so mankind can begin to make greater scientific and technological progress.

Yes, I do. But the answer to that problem is not to get rid of business, but to get rid of the politicians

.
Big business cannot operate without politicians and government to protect them with military/police force.

I have no objection to people willingly living in socialist communities where everything is democratic; what I object to is that you want me to live in one. That kind of arrogance is unacceptable.

You just want to be special and have your own little fiefdom. This is arrogance.

[william7]

Of course "true" socialism has never been achieved by any country because "true" socialism is based upon faulty dialectical logic, therefore it ends are unachievable. It's a fundamentally flawed philosophical system. IOW, a wonderful idea with zero potential for practical execution and sustainability. As with other "sunshine and lollipop" theories, socialism ignores the fundamental human tendencies towards competition and innovation. If we were dealing with robots socialism would be perfect.

Conditions just haven't been ripe for success. At some point in history as society becomes more technologically advanced and the workers become more educated, they will take control of the means of production and produce a better world. It's inevitable. Learn to like the idea and accept it.

Socialism: Where the apathetic masses subsist at the government teet and the prime movers refuse to participate and innovation stagnates. Sounds wonderful...

Strictly a capitalist/exploiter's definition.

How about getting off you ass and producing something of value that others will pay for?

Don't want anybodies money and I would much rather do something of value to help others for free. Right now I'm trying to stay out of the role of exploiter or exploitee. I may not have any money or live in luxury, but I do get by.

[william7]

Who is John Galt?

Capitalist fantasy/propaganda.

[sUper GeNius]

I like to make the analogy between what happened in the last year to the meteor that landed in Yucatan. Life survived. Capitalism will survive.

[JLL]

Because when workers are wage slaves their freedom of choice is drastically limited. Socialism would increase the workers freedoms and produce a better quality of life for all in the process.

So let me get this straight: a group of people explicitly express to you their wish to move out of your community into another community so that they could work for someone else, and you say that this is unacceptable, because it would be wage slavery? Are you at all familiar with the concept of slavery? If both parties are willing then it cannot, by definition, be slavery. Why do you distort the meaning of the term so grossly just so you could help your cause?

Looking at your other sentence, it is clear that you have "freedom" and "slavery" mixed up! You want to stop people from making their own decisions concerning their own life (e.g. person A wanting to work for person B) and call this an increase in freedom, whereas allowing such decisions is slavery. Clearly, this is a ridiculous position to take.

I don't see it that way. When you exploit people and make their lives more difficult, you're restricting their freedom. Greedily exploiting people through wage slavery is aggression in my book.

How is it exploitation to let people choose for themselves, and how is it not exploitation to have people doing mandatory community service? I am not restricting their freedom in any way. If I said that everyone on the planet MUST work for somebody else, then I would be restricting their freedom, but this is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is give people a choice: if they want to work in a socialist community, that's fine, but for those who don't, don't try to act like you know what's best for them and force them to do so against their will.

You must also have a strange understanding of what aggression is, if hiring someone for a job is "aggression in your book".

I agree. But I see socialism as providing the necessary basis to bring in the religious program needed to put an end to greed and selfishness so mankind can begin to make greater scientific and technological progress.

Okay, but isn't this putting the cart before the horse? If your goal is a world where people are not selfish and greedy and live in socialism, does it really make sense to first establish socialism (which is clearly not suited for greedy and selfish people) and then hope for people to change as a result? If that would've worked, even the "non-perfect" versions of socialism should've had some positive results in terms of human nature. But they didn't.

So really, what you would want to do is first change human nature and then establish socialism. It will be much easier. Either that, or wait for a post-scarcity world, where ownership of property due to scarce resources is no longer needed.

Big business cannot operate without politicians and government to protect them with military/police force.

.

If by "big business" you mean multinational corporations in existence today, then yes, perhaps that is true. But there is nothing inherent about business - which is really just voluntary transactions between people who are producing something - that requires the help of the state. I also have no interested in saving big businesses from failing if they are currently tied to help from the government, so I'm not sure where you're getting at.

You just want to be special and have your own little fiefdom. This is arrogance.

Even if that were true, someone who wants to own the entire world is surely in no position to criticize the man who wants to own a small piece of land.

And in any case, what I want to be is free to make my own decisions while fully subscribing to the non-aggression principle. This is not arrogance. Look it up in a capitalist-manufactured dictionary.

Edited by JLL, 07 March 2009 - 04:24 PM.

[william7]

If I said that everyone on the planet MUST work for somebody else, then I would be restricting their freedom, but this is not what I'm saying.

What you are saying is if you're not smart enough you will be required to work for someone for long hours at low wages and the quality of your life will be seriously impacted.

Below is a definition of socialism you should consider.

What Is Socialism?

Socialism is the collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines,
railroads, land and all other instruments of production. Socialism means production
to satisfy human needs, not, as under capitalism, for sale and profit. Socialism means
direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers
through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization.
Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers, integrally united in
Socialist Industrial Unions. In each workplace, the rank and file will elect whatever
committees or representatives are needed to facilitate production. Within each shop
or office division of a plant, the rank and file will participate directly in formulating
and implementing all plans necessary for efficient operations.
Besides electing all necessary shop officers, the workers will also elect representatives
to a local and national council of their industry or service—and to a central congress
representing all the industries and services. This all-industrial congress will
plan and coordinate production in all areas of the economy. All persons elected to any
post in the socialist government, from the lowest to the highest level, will be directly accountable
to the rank and file. They will be subject to removal at any time that a majority
of those who elected them decide it is necessary.
Such a system would make possible the fullest democracy and freedom. It would be
a society based on the most primary freedom—economic freedom.
For individuals, socialism means an end to economic insecurity and exploitation. It
means workers cease to be commodities bought and sold on the labor market and forced
to work as appendages to tools owned by someone else. It means a chance to develop all
individual capacities and potentials within a free community of free individuals.
Socialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a state
bureaucracy as in the former Soviet Union or China, with the working class oppressed
by a new bureaucratic class. It does not mean a closed party-run system without democratic
rights. It does not mean “nationalization,” or “labor-management boards,” or
state capitalism of any kind. It means a complete end to all capitalist social relations.
To win the struggle for socialist freedom requires enormous efforts of organizational
and educational work. It requires building a political party of socialism to contest
the power of the capitalist class on the political field and to educate the majority
of workers about the need for socialism. It requires building Socialist Industrial
Union organizations to unite all workers in a classconscious industrial force and to
prepare them to take, hold and operate the tools of production.
You are needed in the ranks of Socialists fighting for a better world. Find out more
about the program and work of the Socialist Labor Party and join us to help make
the promise of socialism a reality.

The above statement is located on page 4 of the Dec. 1999 issue of the People, at http://www.slp.org/p...ple/dec99TP.pdf.

Okay, but isn't this putting the cart before the horse? If your goal is a world where people are not selfish and greedy and live in socialism, does it really make sense to first establish socialism (which is clearly not suited for greedy and selfish people) and then hope for people to change as a result? If that would've worked, even the "non-perfect" versions of socialism should've had some positive results in terms of human nature. But they didn't.

You may be correct. There's nothing in the Scriptures that indicates a type of Marxist Socialism must come first before Christian Communism. I have to agree that the world would be better off if it could make the transition into pure Christian Communism without a period of less than perfect Socialism.

There were some positive results to those imperfect forms of socialism you mention. Marxist criminologists found far less rates of street crime in states claiming to be socialist and found capitalism to be a strong breeder of crime - including homicide.

If by "big business" you mean multinational corporations in existence today, then yes, perhaps that is true. But there is nothing inherent about business - which is really just voluntary transactions between people who are producing something - that requires the help of the state. I also have no interested in saving big businesses from failing if they are currently tied to help from the government, so I'm not sure where you're getting at.

Show me a society that has existed in history where there was a working class and an owner class that had no need of an enforceable system of law?

And in any case, what I want to be is free to make my own decisions while fully subscribing to the non-aggression principle.

If you mean you want to be free to manipulate others for your benefit and to their disadvantage, this would be aggression. What's so wrong with sharing everything and staying on the same wrung of the social ladder as your brother? Give it some thought.