The analogy with a family is quite normal, I'd think. Afterall, we do use the word "economy" ("household") to describe the market situation in the country. The people who first thought about these issues certainly did think that a family is an example for an economy.

I also only use the analogy whenever somebody claims that they have never seen socialism work (or "prove" that it cannot work). They seem to have forgotten where they came from.

It's like the egoists who cannot explain why female animals undergo pregnancy to make new animals. The point is simply ignored.

I am also under the impression that most of us do not view mom and dad as something analogous to mom and dad any more.

A good argument against socialism or communism cannot be made based on false assumptions, ignorance of reality, and denial.

Accept that socialism can and does sometimes work, explain why it doesn't always work, why it is unlikely to, and THEN you'll have a case.

But for most people who grew up in a family where everybody contributed according to ability and received according to needs the premise "socialism cannot work" sounds ridiculous, and any further arguments against socialism based on similar denial or ignorance can safely be rejected.

Examples of downright stupid arguments against socialism (and reasons why people might reject them):

• "Socialism doesn't work." (Socialism does indeed work pretty well in the example most visible to all: the standard family. Capitalism, OTOH is plainly shown NOT to work at all in the same environment. Correct argument here would be not "socialism doesn't work" but "socialism cannot be used in circumstances X, Y, Z because A, B, C etc.".)



• "Socialism is fascism." (In Germany communists and social democrats died at the hand of fascists because they were the ONLY ones to oppose the Nazis. Big business did NOTHING to oppose the Nazis, socialists did EVERYTHING to oppose the Nazis. The correct argument here would be to stop blaming the victims for the evils of their murderers and show at least enough respect for the victims of fascism not to accuse them of being the perpetrators.)



• "Socialism is communism." (Here "communism" is Stalinism and the system of the Soviet Union. Social democrats were, again, the most vocal enemies of communism and suffered the most under it. They were put in camps, executed, and otherwise punished for their opinions. In East Germany all parties existed next to the communist party, except for the Social Democratic party, which was illegal. Same respect for the victim thing applies here. The argument simply cannot be used usefully.)



• "Socialist policy X will lead to immediate disaster." (Often used, but usually denies reality. Many such policies have been in place for decades in countries without disastrous consequences. I was once told that a land value tax would lead to immediate disaster, even though Estonia has one and does very well compared to other former Soviet Union members and compared to the rest of the world. To be fair, that same person pointed to LA as an example of a failure of the land value tax, even though LA doesn't have such a tax and never did.)



• "The Nazis were socialists. National SOCIALISTS. Get it? This proves EVERYTHING." (This "argument" is simply based on ignorance of what "Sozialismus" means in the German language. In short, "socialism" is short for an economic socialism, which is advocated by socialists and communists alike. It has nothing to do with socialism as applied to tribes or nations or anything but the economy, although the Soviet communists did also implement national socialist policies. "Sozialismus" itself is simply the -ism related to the word "Sozius", which means "friend", "comrade", "partner" and is used to describe many systems derived from those concepts in German, including "Nationalsozialismus" where all members of a certain tribe or nation are meant to be "partners".)



• "Socialised health care will drive prices up. Here's the proof: X." (While it might be true, in practice, the theoretical proof doesn't work, because socialised health care creates monopsony power, and monopsony power LOWERS prices, just like monopoly power makes them go up. Hence any "proof" X that tries to show the opposite is easily disproven. IOW there is no objective logical proof that socialised health care by itself drives prices up. It does not. All things being equal socialised health care drives prices down. The real argument here would be to point out that when prices go down, quality might go down as well as good doctors leave the country or decide to work in another field where there is more money."



• "Socialised health care is a recipe for disaster." (Many European countries have socialised health care systems and none have approchaed anything that could be considered a "disaster". Life expectation is as high in Germany as it is in the US.)

You are relying too much on evolution here. Fact is that families with adopted children, who are not kin, merely children, also work.

Maybe our instincts are fooled into thinking that we are supporting our own genes. But then socialists claim that we have free will and can apply that same good will to complete strangers (of the same class or whatever). Ironically that makes socialists libertarians (i.e. believers in the doctrine of free will) whereas many of their opponents, who put human nature above free will _CALL_ themselves "libertarians".

The National Socialists did everything they could to defeat Socialism?

I was wrong in my comment in my blog Leauki, you have a great sense of satire! :~D