Why is it that everyone that wants socialism

Awe shucks, you ran out of mojo.
Shame.
Run along!

 

So I guess that means that they don't need the government to help them achieve socialism.

 

That's all I can figure out. They want socialism, but when faced with the incredible amount of historical fail that socialists are responsible for, they say that it wasn't socialism because true socialism doesn't have dictators and tyrants.

If so, then they can be lumped in with the anarchists, and enjoy a well deserved shut the hell up moment.

 

dubs

 

I'd like to pitch in on behalf of Socialists and Commies.

I realise that many here loathe and detest both iterations of resource sharing, but it may be worth your while to consider this stuff from a different perspective.

In the case of actual Communism, one of the 'benefits' of such systems is that everyone must work. There is literally zero possibility of slacking off. There is also zero choice in terms of what you do for that work. You cannot choose to be an artist, or musician, for example. No matter how 'arty' you think you are, you'll still have to work in the cabbage fields, or at the factory ... 10 hours per day, 6 days a week. That should please the Conservatives here. Hipster Progressive Slackers would be the first to disintegrate under Communism!

With Socialism, we're all provided with the tools for financial independence (free education and healthcare), but are free to use them as we see fit. To my mind, that should please Conservatives even more. When we all have the same access to such opportunity, those who don't take it, make themselves very plain. We then know exactly who to support, and who to ignore. Plus, freedom of choice!

 

Best observed through heavy field glasses...

but okay, I'll be happy to see how our socialist friends manage to cope when they find out that social welfare no longer means just sitting at home watching TV and complaining about how everybody who works seems to have far more money than they do.

Do we have any salt mines in Alaska that need a few extra helping hands?

 

Government spending is not redistribution by definition. Money that is spent in a manner that affects all citizens equally certainly is not. The military is an obvious and huge example. Wealth distribution only exists when the government wants to treat citizens fairly instead of treating them equally.

 

Taxation is wealth redistribution - by definition. It is taking money from one person and giving it to another, regardless of whether or not this "other" is the collective as a whole or certain members within the collective.

Taxation is what makes Gov't spending possible.

 

I agree with the last sentence. Deficit spending and debt also make government spending possible.

 

Debt spending eventually has to be paid via taxation. It is thus a form of delayed wealth redistribution.

I really do not understand how you can not understand that most taxation in general is wealth redistribution. We could quibble over whether or not certain tariffs or royalties (or perhaps even some corporate taxes - but this is getting sketchy IMO) but, in general, property tax, personal income tax, and taxes on private business is taking money from one person and giving it to another.

You do not argue that money is taken from you through taxes. You are arguing that because this money is distributed among the collective that this is not wealth redistribution. The claim that it is equally distributed is very flawed. Taxes that go to schools benefit only those with Children. Taxes that go to roads benefit corporations who transport lots of goods more than the individual. Taxes that go do police benefit the rich more than the poor (Obviously if one has more to protect - one benefits more - same with the military which is used - most often these days- to protect assets abroad or to further the agenda of Establishment international financiers).

Even if we were to be able to legitimately say "it is going equally to the collective" it is still wealth redistribution. This is one of the main functions of socialism- to redistribute wealth among the collective.

 

WHERE do you GET this crap? Try substantiating this with authoritative links. You won't be able to.

 

Agreed. (WOW!)
So every country redistributes wealth, and they must. I'm glad that's finally settled.

 

The largest majority of tax revenue is spent on services, military, and corporate gifts/subsidies.

 

This is an excellent question which should be showed to anyone who has no idea what socialism is. There is a clear definition of communism - when means of production belong to a state, but there is no clear cut definition of socialism. By "socialism" people usually mean a system like in European countries - where high education is free or almost free, health benefits for all and much more benefits for workers. Who pays for all this? All citizens and the wealthy pay the biggest share. Why in the US the wealthy don't pay their shares? Because the wealthy convinced the majority of American voters that it is very unfair if the wealthy will share their wealth with American people - the system where the wealthy pay their share is - OMG - SOCIALISM.

 

LOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

BY DEFINITION COMMUNISM IS STATELESS SOCIETY!!!!
Obviously you have ZERO idea what it is, yet you spew this ridiculous fabrication! If you're going to post on a controversial subject, at least learn the basics of the subject.

At least you're consistent. Socialism as defined by Marx would be "the dictatorship of the proletariat (working class)" over the "bourgeoisie" (capitalist class). And it would entail worker ownership and control of the means of production.

As Marx and Engels said, "Socialism will establish a new social and economic order in which workers and community members will take responsibility for and control of their interpersonal relationships, their neighborhoods, their local government, and the production and distribution of all goods and services."
https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/platform

In The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, Marx summed up the revolutionary experience of that period and elaborated the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He pointed out explicitly: “This Socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.”
https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/peking-review/1975/PR1975-15a.htm

Yup, you're consistent. Wow dude, you really know nothing about this! The European system you're referring to is "democratic socialism" which is an economy based on capitalism with social programs. In none of those countries does the working class own and run the "means of production" (look it up).

Who would you have pay for it? Santa?

LOL!!!! EVERY COMMENT you've made in your post is wrong and untrue. Every one!
In this case it's no different.
"some three-quarters of Americans believe the wealthiest should pay more, Reuters/Ipsos polling shows."
https://nypost.com/2017/10/11/most-americans-want-to-raise-taxes-on-the-rich-poll/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/190775/americans-say-upper-income-pay-little-taxes.aspx

"Even Millionaires Think The Rich Should Pay Higher Taxes" - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/millionaires-taxes-survey_n_5272647.html

Thanks for the great example of how little the right actually knows about these things.

 

all of which is wealth redistribution.

 

And so as I said, EVERY country redistributes wealth because it is necessary.

 

Indeed .. capitalism could not thrive without it.

 

Oh ... just from having lived it intermittently, and being related (directly) to people who lived it for many many years, for realsies.

If you think Common Purse (aka, Communism) doesn't involve complete loss of freedom to slack off and/or pursue 'the arts', you're so naive I can only LOLsie around in my chair. Common Purse is entirely dependent upon ALL members pulling their weight, daily, without let up, in the very dull mechanics of day to day survival. There is no largesse for 'thinking'.

 

Ok, so you can't prove it with any authoritative source, so you rely on second hand propaganda combined with your own. COMMUNIST SOCIETY HAS NEVER EXISTED!!

People normally refer to one of two things, or a confusion of both, when they refer to "communism". One thing is communist theory. The other is communist society. You have made it clear that you are referring to communist society. So I ask you, where has there ever been a society that is devoid of classes and lacks state machinery? WHERE?

 

There was one in the rain forests of Borneo, but they were cannibals.

 

Another in the rain forest of guiana, but they eventually took the long dirt nap.

 

I'm sorry, but you're woefully unqualified to discuss this. No matter what your 'books' tell you, the harsh and rude reality of LIVED communism (common purse) is the stripping away of personal goals, in favour of the collective. There is no other way in which it can happen, obviously. Just try thinking about it, or better yet, living it - like I did. And there absolutely is SUCCESSFUL communism, going on to this day.

While I have lived working and successful communism, and remain in contact with highly successful communes (who do practice common purse, and have done for decades), my relatives lived the political version for many many years. It was the same as my experience, but on a larger scale. They did not get to choose what they worked in, where they worked, or even where and how they lived. It was chosen for them, in support of the collective.

Once again, you're out of your depth. You're relying on either old books and/or modern observations made by people who have no lived experience of common purse. All the theories and philosophies in the world don't amount to a hill of beans when 500 people need to be fed, clothed, and housed - by keeping all the wheels turning, 24/7. Because that's what communism is - keeping the collective alive.

 

There were also several such tribes in North America in the 1500s. But my meaning was national societies, i.e. nations or countries.

 

Further, I've also lived the not-officially-communist but in most respects definitely communist, agrarian remote village life. Particularly, in cultures in which village responsibility outweighs personal freedoms. A life that most closely resembles that which the modern Socialist thinks they want, but have the very least capacity (of anyone) to actually live.