Socialist democracy never works because it always requires the use of violence to enforce it's ideologies.
No, it doesn’t. Even by your preffered source of definition, @zubasky.
If you want to talk about something, first you have to know what it is. The worst kind of arrogance is the arrogance of ignorance.
What world are you from? Do you know the history of socialism on earth? It always fails. It might work on your planet but not on earth were humans have sacrificed their lives for centuries/millenniums to have freedom and less control over their lives.
That is why you should first know what socialism is. You think you know history of socialism, and you aren’t even aware that there were no socialism on Earth so far. You would know it if you would just watch the explanation of professor Wolff in a posted link. Is that so hard for you?
You know “socialism” from the capitalist propaganda which is aimed at killing any humane idea. You also can read full book “The Last Revolution” by the PhD Ljubodrag Simonovic here:
https://steemit.com/@lighteye/the-last-revolution-part-23
In short: If something is called “socialism” does not mean it is socialism. You can take your cabinet, write on it “the Piano”, but it will still be a cabinet only.
Semantics, if you want to redefine the term socialism then you have a long road ahead. You should go debate Crowder and determine the definition before you declare your position:
In short: Because everyone has called it a piano for thousands of years, and you say it is a cabinet and there never has been a "real" piano, creates a real dilemma. (There are several different types of pianos, fyi) I suggest you hone your definition of which type of socialism you are advocating, as there are several sects/varieties of "socialism."
It is already defined. You just don’t want to know and refuse to learn.
Definition of Socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
-Merriam-Webster
So your definition is wrong, just like your wrong in thinking it can work and thinking it has never been tried, and how you think it doesn't always fail.
I have to turn you back to your words:
Where is the violence in your definitions?
If you would want to know, you would start thinking. In theory, socialism is the next step.
It is more humane one than capitalism — exploitative system that needs system of oppression. If it has more violence, than it is not socialism, but a higher stage in capitalism — state capitalism. Richard Wolff explains that very nice in the video at the link in my first comment. You know, if you do not accept the truth, you will be forced to live it.
In socialism you (gov) have to take from someone else to give someone something, which is theft, theft=violence.
No one here is advocating state capitalism, the term was anarcho-capitalist. And it applies to voluntary interactions between consenting parties. No use of oppression or violence required when interactions are voluntary, right?