Reply #31: Yes, it's a silly claim.

[Igel]

Then again, there are those who claim that Christ and early Xians were actually socialists.

Hell, it's hard enough defining "socialism" in practice terms for just the 20th century. Do you listen to what people claimed they were, theoretical political science, or adherents who really don't want to accept that "true" socialism has never been tried and therefore is untarnished.

I think of it as "communalism". Voluntary, self-policing communes are viable but usually fail after a generation or so unless they kick out loafers and import adherents. The tragedy of the commons and competing definitions of "fair" usually squash them. The Plymouth colony wasn't fully voluntary and self-policing, and either they had to lose the idea of working entirely and just for the common good or they had to resort to draconian measures. They chose the former, and even then were riven by the need to operate by consensus. Most governments opt for the latter because while a consensus among 30 or 50 people is nearly impossible, the idea of a consensus among 10 million is risible. (Not that I don't use "consensus" with its new-found meaning of "majority".)