Revolutionary Socialists (e.g: USSR, China - both back in the day) and Democratic Socialists might seem the same from a distance. But the nature of violence is

Revolutionary Socialists (e.g: USSR, China - both back in the day) and Democratic Socialists might seem the same from a distance. But the nature of violence is to lead to more violence, and both the USSR and China have great deals of state violence (as does the USA - I think it is the history of revolution, perhaps?) Democratic socialists have to convince you. Not so much th Bolsheviks, they just make you. > all examples of pure socialism that I'm aware of end up as a total failure "Pure socialism" is a bit silly. How could there ever be such a thing? The Bolsheviks and the CCP were fascists to my way of thinking. In Western Europe , France had a number of revolutions but recovered. The rest of them went the Democratic Socialist route. Democratic Socialists, by necessity originally and these days as a positive policy, believe in a mixed economy. Point is I do not think that Western Europe can be classed a "total failure" nor as "pure socialism". > "real" socialism (like the idea the grocery stores are owned by the state Yes. Mixed economies work better. It comes down to culture for a lot of places.