Europe submits voluntarily

[ruby sparks]

With one big difference. Many socialists think there is such a thing as a free lunch, and believe the country owes them a living. Conservatives on the other hand believe on reward for effort.

Inheriting money sure looks like a free lunch to me? Getting more opportunities in life because of who your parents are is free lunching like a mother fucker. Capitalism is introducing unfairness (free lunches) artificially to boost incentives for work. The reason people like capitalism is because it works. But if you want to argue it's fair, I'd say you were high as a kite.

Donald Trump is a perfect example of the failings of capitalism. He's an absolute disaster as a human. An overgrown retarded man child who's only redeeming quality was inheriting money. An inheritance that he monumentally mismanaged and pissed away. The man hasn't worked a day in his life. If capitalism was meritocratic he wouldn't be elected to run a public lavatory, let alone the US presidency. He demonstrates how capitalism doesn't necessarily encourage hard work. Yes, incentives matter.

You clearly haven't thought this through.

I'm pretty liberal in my outlook. But I'm a pragmatist at heart. I support whatever works. I don't believe in a one size fits all solution. We often forget that we tried neo-liberalism in the West in the 19'th century. We stopped because it was a fucking disaster. That was the society that spawned socialism as a reaction to it.

Libertarianism is trendy today, but those guys need to read more history. It wasn't a well oiled society. It was in many way utterly dysfunctional. I really don't want to go back there

In your opinion then, anyone who inherits a family fortune should not be entitled to it, and perhaps hand it over to the bums who have never done a fair days work in their lives? ?

Imo, both capitalism and socialism have their merits and both can be claimed to be fair and reasonable in different ways. To me, the question is, where, in the middle of the two extremes, is there most merit?

US Libertarian Capitalism has been dubbed, 'Toxic Capitalism' and I often think there's something in that.

A Better model of capitalism might be what's known as The Nordic Model. Though even that isn't perfect by any means, obviously, and it's actually a blend of capitalism and socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

That said, economies are closely-related to their cultural, social and political contexts and circumstances and you couldn't necessarily transplant one version to a different place.

 

[ruby sparks]

Inheritance Tax of itself is an interesting example. It could be argued that neither 100% nor 0% are good options and that picking a suitable rate somewhere in the middle, that can be justified by this or that social, economic or political argument, is better. Picking a threshold at which it kicks in or doesn't is another consideration.

But what is 'good' in one economy/society does not necessarily mean 'good' in another.

Interestingly, I read that Sweden, for example, abolished Inheritance Tax in 2004:

https://iea.org.uk/blog/how-high-tax-sweden-abolished-its-disastrous-inheritance-tax

'Nordic Models' are not static mixtures. This or that policy on any one particular item can vary.

 

[angelo]

In your opinion then, anyone who inherits a family fortune should not be entitled to it, and perhaps hand it over to the bums who have never done a fair days work in their lives? ?

Imo, both capitalism and socialism have their merits and both can be claimed to be fair and reasonable in different ways. To me, the question is, where, in the middle of the two extremes, is there most merit?

US Libertarian Capitalism has been dubbed, 'Toxic Capitalism' and I often think there's something in that.

A Better model of capitalism might be what's known as The Nordic Model. Though even that isn't perfect by any means, obviously, and it's actually a blend of capitalism and socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

That said, economies are closely-related to their cultural, social and political contexts and circumstances and you couldn't necessarily transplant one version to a different place.

As I've said many times here though. This is the catch......................Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world's highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011),[23] and Finland (43.3%). The Nordic countries have relatively flat tax rates, meaning that even those on medium and low incomes are taxed at relatively high levels

 

[ruby sparks]

In your opinion then, anyone who inherits a family fortune should not be entitled to it, and perhaps hand it over to the bums who have never done a fair days work in their lives? ?

Imo, both capitalism and socialism have their merits and both can be claimed to be fair and reasonable in different ways. To me, the question is, where, in the middle of the two extremes, is there most merit?

US Libertarian Capitalism has been dubbed, 'Toxic Capitalism' and I often think there's something in that.

A Better model of capitalism might be what's known as The Nordic Model. Though even that isn't perfect by any means, obviously, and it's actually a blend of capitalism and socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

That said, economies are closely-related to their cultural, social and political contexts and circumstances and you couldn't necessarily transplant one version to a different place.

As I've said many times here though. This is the catch......................Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world's highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011),[23] and Finland (43.3%). The Nordic countries have relatively flat tax rates, meaning that even those on medium and low incomes are taxed at relatively high levels

I'm not an expert.

In general terms, I have read that Scandinavian societies (generalising here) accept higher rates of taxation partly because they can see the societal benefits, that they themselves either get something tangible back for their money or would do if they ever needed it. This may involve a degree of trust in government that is greater than in other countries, such as the USA.

As to flat rates, I like the UK system of incremental income rates starting at 0% (for income up to £11,500) and rising in stages, because the economically less well off are taxed less. The Swedish rates, for example, are flatter, as you say (though still progressive).

Personally, I would be in favour of raising taxes in the UK to pay for better public services. This would mean I would pay more tax myself. I don't think I or UK taxpayers generally pay enough tax. It has often been said, for example, that we want Scandinavian healthcare at American prices, and I'd go along with that.

Why do you call it 'the catch'? If the catch is that if you want a 'better' society you may need to pay more for it, then ok. I'd generally agree.

 

[Jokodo]

In your opinion then, anyone who inherits a family fortune should not be entitled to it, and perhaps hand it over to the bums who have never done a fair days work in their lives? ?

Imo, both capitalism and socialism have their merits and both can be claimed to be fair and reasonable in different ways. To me, the question is, where, in the middle of the two extremes, is there most merit?

US Libertarian Capitalism has been dubbed, 'Toxic Capitalism' and I often think there's something in that.

A Better model of capitalism might be what's known as The Nordic Model. Though even that isn't perfect by any means, obviously, and it's actually a blend of capitalism and socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

That said, economies are closely-related to their cultural, social and political contexts and circumstances and you couldn't necessarily transplant one version to a different place.

As I've said many times here though. This is the catch......................Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world's highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011),[23] and Finland (43.3%). The Nordic countries have relatively flat tax rates, meaning that even those on medium and low incomes are taxed at relatively high levels

What percentage of a middle class American family's income is spent on things that are free or heavily subsidised in Sweden, Denmark or Finland, though?

If someone who makes $ 100k in the US pays 30k taxes and 30k for medical bills and the kids' college fees, while someone who makes $ 100k in Sweden pays 50k taxes while health care and higher education are guaranteed to be free, who's better off?

 

[ruby sparks]

What percentage of a middle class American family's income is spent on things that are free or heavily subsidised in Sweden, Denmark or Finland, though?

If someone who makes $ 100k in the US pays 30k taxes and 30k for medical bills and the kids' college fees, while someone who makes $ 100k in Sweden pays 50k taxes while health care and higher education are guaranteed to be free, who's better off?

Good point.

 

[Harry Bosch]

As I've said many times here though. This is the catch......................Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world's highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011),[23] and Finland (43.3%). The Nordic countries have relatively flat tax rates, meaning that even those on medium and low incomes are taxed at relatively high levels

I'm not an expert.

In general terms, I have read that Scandinavian societies (generalising here) accept higher rates of taxation partly because they can see the societal benefits, that they themselves either get something tangible back for their money or would do if they ever needed it. This may involve a degree of trust in government that is greater than in other countries, such as the USA.

As to flat rates, I like the UK system of incremental income rates starting at 0% (for income up to £11,500) and rising in stages, because the economically less well off are taxed less. The Swedish rates, for example, are flatter, as you say (though still progressive).

Personally, I would be in favour of raising taxes in the UK to pay for better public services. This would mean I would pay more tax myself. I don't think I or UK taxpayers generally pay enough tax. It has often been said, for example, that we want Scandinavian healthcare at American prices, and I'd go along with that.

Why do you call it 'the catch'? If the catch is that if you want a 'better' society you may need to pay more for it, then ok. I'd generally agree.

Sure. You are arguing for a larger safety net. A larger safety net is what is really the difference between the Scandinavian countries and the US. But there is this growing belief that the "Nordic" countries are socialist. This is just false. The private sector is very strong in Norway and Sweden. This posts always stick out to me because I started a company and had our butts kicked by a Norwegian company. And then was eventually bought out by a joint Norway-Swedish company. After the fact, we got a great deal! But we got out maneuvered by two great innovative, aggressive, and cunning Nordic companies. Believe me, they are formidable capitalists!

 

[ruby sparks]

Sure. You are arguing for a larger safety net.

That's part of it, yes. That's the 'if I ever needed to get something back, it would be there for me'. But there's also the immediately tangible, as suggested by Jokodo just now.

But there is this growing belief that the "Nordic" countries are socialist. This is just false. The private sector is very strong in Norway and Sweden. This posts always stick out to me because I started a company and had our butts kicked by a Norwegian company. And then was eventually bought out by a joint Norway-Swedish company. After the fact, we got a great deal! But we got out maneuvered by two great innovative, aggressive, and cunning Nordic companies. Believe me, they are formidable capitalists!

Over here, we don't generally consider the Nordic countries as Socialist. As far as I can tell, that's a 'dirty word' for Scandinavia used in the US.

It's a dirty word, of itself, in other places too. Including here. But perhaps especially in the US, and may even have been 'imported' here to some degree.

It's all degrees.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In your opinion then, anyone who inherits a family fortune should not be entitled to it, and perhaps hand it over to the bums who have never done a fair days work in their lives? ?

I haven't told you my opinion. Just as Jokodo pointed out, you are inconsistent. You're the definition of "everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others".

If you think inheritance tax is a good idea, then say that. But don't in the same breath claim that you are against free lunches. You are obviously fine with some free lunches. Perhaps if you formulate some sort of coherent theory you might look less foolish?

If there was a single solution that would fix everything, then we wouldn't still be arguing about it. There are some very smart people who disagree on a fundamental level on economy. In a situation like that it's idiotic for laypeople, like you and me, to make universal statements about what economic policy is always the best.

I'm for whatever keeps the market dynamic and allows for members of it to climb above their social class, if they are so inclined. Whatever does I will support. If the rich are too disproportionately rich that will mess up the entire market. It puts too much power in too few hands. That's not good for competitiveness. In situations like that we need more inheritance tax. Sweden has no inheritance tax. We don't need it. The desired effect is reached by other means. England has high inheritance tax. They need it. Competition and dynamism is the magic sauce that makes us wealthy. Sweden and Denmark both have high taxes as well as being very prosperous countries. Sweden is right now suffering from an acute labor shortage. Because it's going so well for us. That's why we like immigrants so much.

Me personally, I'm a pragmatist at heart. I don't really care about ideology. Even though I identify as left. I just tend to get along better with that kind of crowd. It's more a social identity than a belief about policy.

 

[bilby]

With one big difference. Many socialists think there is such a thing as a free lunch, and believe the country owes them a living. Conservatives on the other hand believe on reward for effort.

Inheriting money sure looks like a free lunch to me? Getting more opportunities in life because of who your parents are is free lunching like a mother fucker. Capitalism is introducing unfairness (free lunches) artificially to boost incentives for work. The reason people like capitalism is because it works. But if you want to argue it's fair, I'd say you were high as a kite.

Donald Trump is a perfect example of the failings of capitalism. He's an absolute disaster as a human. An overgrown retarded man child who's only redeeming quality was inheriting money. An inheritance that he monumentally mismanaged and pissed away. The man hasn't worked a day in his life. If capitalism was meritocratic he wouldn't be elected to run a public lavatory, let alone the US presidency. He demonstrates how capitalism doesn't necessarily encourage hard work. Yes, incentives matter.

You clearly haven't thought this through.

I'm pretty liberal in my outlook. But I'm a pragmatist at heart. I support whatever works. I don't believe in a one size fits all solution. We often forget that we tried neo-liberalism in the West in the 19'th century. We stopped because it was a fucking disaster. That was the society that spawned socialism as a reaction to it.

Libertarianism is trendy today, but those guys need to read more history. It wasn't a well oiled society. It was in many way utterly dysfunctional. I really don't want to go back there

In your opinion then, anyone who inherits a family fortune should not be entitled to it, and perhaps hand it over to the because they are either bums who have never done a fair days work in their lives, or they have their own money and don't need it, so it's better to give it to people who need it but who have the misfortune not to be able to earn it

FTFY.

 

[bilby]

As I've said many times here though. This is the catch......................Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world's highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011),[23] and Finland (43.3%). The Nordic countries have relatively flat tax rates, meaning that even those on medium and low incomes are taxed at relatively high levels

I'm not an expert.

In general terms, I have read that Scandinavian societies (generalising here) accept higher rates of taxation partly because they can see the societal benefits, that they themselves either get something tangible back for their money or would do if they ever needed it. This may involve a degree of trust in government that is greater than in other countries, such as the USA.

As to flat rates, I like the UK system of incremental income rates starting at 0% (for income up to £11,500) and rising in stages, because the economically less well off are taxed less. The Swedish rates, for example, are flatter, as you say (though still progressive).

Personally, I would be in favour of raising taxes in the UK to pay for better public services. This would mean I would pay more tax myself. I don't think I or UK taxpayers generally pay enough tax. It has often been said, for example, that we want Scandinavian healthcare at American prices, and I'd go along with that.

Why do you call it 'the catch'? If the catch is that if you want a 'better' society you may need to pay more for it, then ok. I'd generally agree.

Sure. You are arguing for a larger safety net. A larger safety net is what is really the difference between the Scandinavian countries and the US. But there is this growing belief that the "Nordic" countries are socialist. This is just false. The private sector is very strong in Norway and Sweden. This posts always stick out to me because I started a company and had our butts kicked by a Norwegian company. And then was eventually bought out by a joint Norway-Swedish company. After the fact, we got a great deal! But we got out maneuvered by two great innovative, aggressive, and cunning Nordic companies. Believe me, they are formidable capitalists!

Two nations divided by a common language.

"Socialism' in America means what an English speaker would call 'Communism'.

A large safety net is the very essence of what an English speaker means by the word 'Socialism'. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the means of production.

 

[angelo]

As I've said many times here though. This is the catch......................Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world's highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011),[23] and Finland (43.3%). The Nordic countries have relatively flat tax rates, meaning that even those on medium and low incomes are taxed at relatively high levels

I'm not an expert.

In general terms, I have read that Scandinavian societies (generalising here) accept higher rates of taxation partly because they can see the societal benefits, that they themselves either get something tangible back for their money or would do if they ever needed it. This may involve a degree of trust in government that is greater than in other countries, such as the USA.

As to flat rates, I like the UK system of incremental income rates starting at 0% (for income up to £11,500) and rising in stages, because the economically less well off are taxed less. The Swedish rates, for example, are flatter, as you say (though still progressive).

Personally, I would be in favour of raising taxes in the UK to pay for better public services. This would mean I would pay more tax myself. I don't think I or UK taxpayers generally pay enough tax. It has often been said, for example, that we want Scandinavian healthcare at American prices, and I'd go along with that.

Why do you call it 'the catch'? If the catch is that if you want a 'better' society you may need to pay more for it, then ok. I'd generally agree.

If Jeremy Corbyn is elected you will get your wish and more.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Sure. You are arguing for a larger safety net.

That's part of it, yes. That's the 'if I ever needed to get something back, it would be there for me'. But there's also the immediately tangible, as suggested by Jokodo just now.

But there is this growing belief that the "Nordic" countries are socialist. This is just false. The private sector is very strong in Norway and Sweden. This posts always stick out to me because I started a company and had our butts kicked by a Norwegian company. And then was eventually bought out by a joint Norway-Swedish company. After the fact, we got a great deal! But we got out maneuvered by two great innovative, aggressive, and cunning Nordic companies. Believe me, they are formidable capitalists!

Over here, we don't generally consider the Nordic countries as Socialist. As far as I can tell, that's a 'dirty word' for Scandinavia used in the US.

It's a dirty word, of itself, in other places too. Including here. But perhaps especially in the US, and may even have been 'imported' here to some degree.

It's all degrees.

It's very frustrating, but the right wing in the US has been wildly successful at redefining words to win an argument. Right wingers changed the definition of larger safety net to mean "socialism". A tax on an estate is now called "death tax". Government allocating scarce health care resources is now called "death panels". It's frustrating to see people on the left also adopting the right wing language. And I know that I'm fighting an unwinnable battle, but I won't give up.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's very frustrating, but the right wing in the US has been wildly successful at redefining words to win an argument. Right wingers changed the definition of larger safety net to mean "socialism". A tax on an estate is now called "death tax". Government allocating scarce health care resources is now called "death panels". It's frustrating to see people on the left also adopting the right wing language. And I know that I'm fighting an unwinnable battle, but I won't give up.

Viewed from across the water, it is clear that language has been used inaccurately to discredit certain ideas that don't accord with the extreme capitalism that is dominant. I often wonder how come so many citizens apparently buy into it. It makes me sad, actually. It's not exclusive to the USA of course. It goes on here too, to a lesser extent.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Sure. You are arguing for a larger safety net. A larger safety net is what is really the difference between the Scandinavian countries and the US. But there is this growing belief that the "Nordic" countries are socialist. This is just false. The private sector is very strong in Norway and Sweden. This posts always stick out to me because I started a company and had our butts kicked by a Norwegian company. And then was eventually bought out by a joint Norway-Swedish company. After the fact, we got a great deal! But we got out maneuvered by two great innovative, aggressive, and cunning Nordic companies. Believe me, they are formidable capitalists!

Two nations divided by a common language.

"Socialism' in America means what an English speaker would call 'Communism'.

A large safety net is the very essence of what an English speaker means by the word 'Socialism'. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the means of production.

I think the difference is in what we would call Marxism. In England it refers to Karl Marx. In the USA it refers to Groucho Marx.

For instance he said,

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”

 

[Harry Bosch]

It's very frustrating, but the right wing in the US has been wildly successful at redefining words to win an argument. Right wingers changed the definition of larger safety net to mean "socialism". A tax on an estate is now called "death tax". Government allocating scarce health care resources is now called "death panels". It's frustrating to see people on the left also adopting the right wing language. And I know that I'm fighting an unwinnable battle, but I won't give up.

Viewed from across the water, it is clear that language has been used inaccurately to discredit certain ideas that don't accord with the extreme capitalism that is dominant. I often wonder how come so many citizens apparently buy into it. It makes me sad, actually. It's not exclusive to the USA of course. It goes on here too, to a lesser extent.

I agree. How about we buck the trend and use words are they are defined? Do you guys in the EU use the Merriam-Webster? Below is their definition of socialism. If not, which dictionary do you use?

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
2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3 a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
4. 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

 

[Harry Bosch]

Sure. You are arguing for a larger safety net. A larger safety net is what is really the difference between the Scandinavian countries and the US. But there is this growing belief that the "Nordic" countries are socialist. This is just false. The private sector is very strong in Norway and Sweden. This posts always stick out to me because I started a company and had our butts kicked by a Norwegian company. And then was eventually bought out by a joint Norway-Swedish company. After the fact, we got a great deal! But we got out maneuvered by two great innovative, aggressive, and cunning Nordic companies. Believe me, they are formidable capitalists!

Two nations divided by a common language.

"Socialism' in America means what an English speaker would call 'Communism'.

A large safety net is the very essence of what an English speaker means by the word 'Socialism'. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the means of production.

Socialism is really where the means of production are owned by the collective. There is no individual ownership of assets.

Communism is suppose to be the next stage where assets or the means of production are owned in common and are available to all. Communism is generally meant to be universal as well. In communism it's theorized that the state will wither away and all goods are distrubited out equally.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's very frustrating, but the right wing in the US has been wildly successful at redefining words to win an argument. Right wingers changed the definition of larger safety net to mean "socialism". A tax on an estate is now called "death tax". Government allocating scarce health care resources is now called "death panels". It's frustrating to see people on the left also adopting the right wing language. And I know that I'm fighting an unwinnable battle, but I won't give up.

Viewed from across the water, it is clear that language has been used inaccurately to discredit certain ideas that don't accord with the extreme capitalism that is dominant. I often wonder how come so many citizens apparently buy into it. It makes me sad, actually. It's not exclusive to the USA of course. It goes on here too, to a lesser extent.

I agree. How about we buck the trend and use words are they are defined? Do you guys in the EU use the Merriam-Webster? Below is their definition of socialism. If not, which dictionary do you use?

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
2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3 a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
4. 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

Actually, looking at British dictionaries, that is not too different. Wiki does it better, when it opens by saying that the word refers to a range of systems.

Obviously, 'Socialism' can refer to a system where some but not all of the ownership is collective or governmental. This, I think, is the version common in the Social Democracies of western Europe. The state owns and controls certain things (those 'basics' deemed to have the most 'collective' interest, such as rail transport and health and energy) and others are open to the free-market. Housing is often mixed, where the state owns and provides and manages some. I don't think the blend is the same in any two countries.

My outside impression of the USA is that Socialism is treated as an all or nothing thing.

Though I doubt that's true. There was a lot of support for Bernie Sanders. I have a lot of admiration for Sanders, who I hear did a great job as 'Socialist' mayor of Burlington and was, wiki says, rated as one of America's best ever mayors in a national poll in 1987.

I have this abiding suspicion that if the average American wised up they would realise they'd probably be better served by some sort of blend of Social Democracy like Europe has.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I agree. How about we buck the trend and use words are they are defined? Do you guys in the EU use the Merriam-Webster? Below is their definition of socialism. If not, which dictionary do you use?

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
2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3 a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
4. 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

Actually, looking at British dictionaries, that is not too different. Wiki does it better, when it opens by saying that the word refers to a range of systems.

Obviously, 'Socialism' can refer to a system where some but not all of the ownership is collective or governmental. This, I think, is the version common in the Social Democracies of western Europe. The state owns and controls certain things (those 'basics' deemed to have the most 'collective' interest, such as rail transport and health and energy) and others are open to the free-market. Housing is often mixed, where the state owns and provides and manages some. I don't think the blend is the same in any two countries.

My outside impression of the USA is that Socialism is treated as an all or nothing thing.

Though I doubt that's true. There was a lot of support for Bernie Sanders. I have a lot of admiration for Sanders, who I hear did a great job as 'Socialist' mayor of Burlington and was, wiki says, rated as one of America's best ever mayors in a national poll in 1987.

I have this abiding suspicion that if the average American wised up they would realise they'd probably be better served by some sort of blend of Social Democracy like Europe has.

Well, socialism is meant to be a stage towards communism. Under socialism assets are collectivized and controlled by the collective. Then after this creates world harmony and abundance, communism would emerge where all goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. So, right wingers starting defining social spending by government as emerging socialism. We'd better stop the safety net stuff or else the communists will take over! Then for some reason, the left started describing "government spending" as socialism about 10 years ago or so.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, socialism is meant to be a stage towards communism. Under socialism assets are collectivized and controlled by the collective. Then after this creates world harmony and abundance, communism would emerge where all goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. So, right wingers starting defining social spending by government as emerging socialism. We'd better stop the safety net stuff or else the communists will take over! Then for some reason, the left started describing "government spending" as socialism about 10 years ago or so.

You have a Left over there? Who knew?