Socialism and communism are two flavors of the same ice cream. In fact, if government and economic systems could be ice cream, those collective philosophies would be strawberries and salmon flavored. It’s just that socialism would have sprinkles and communism would be in a waffle cone. Oh- and someone else would pay for it on your behalf.
Liberal city residents, when questioned on this, make it obvious that socialists are just people who want free stuff so they can go ahead and spend their money on baubles. They think socialism means- in his words- “taking care of the needs of people, things like national health care, like that.”
Then he is asked, “What about the government taking property, businesses, things like that?” He mentions not really thinking about socialism like that.
This socialist supporter then says, “I don’t like the idea of government taking things away from you.”
Then they switch to a guy who, let’s put it gently, doesn’t look very masculine and is wearing a Cuban flag medallion on a chain around his neck. His opinion is that there is too much wealth inequality in this country, and that could be solved with higher taxes on the rich.
The next woman comes on and is at least honest- her belief of what socialism is, is the elimination of private businesses. She says it’s too difficult to run small business, and corporations have too much power, so the way to solve this is to make all businesses owned by the government. She is at least the first person they interviewed who knew the answer and was not shy about honesty.
That’s the problem with socialists- they have a desire for free necessities, but don’t give a single thought into how it will be paid for, or the ones who DO think about that, assume it will be taken from those evil “rich people.”
These two theories of government are, simply stated, government ownership. Socialists will be quick to argue the two are different because in socialism, you still get to own your property. Do you really? No, you don’t. Socialism is an idea about organizing the economy so that businesses and resources are owned or controlled socially, in other words, by the government. The stated reason is to reduce inequality and serve public needs. In other words, seizing the means of the production of goods and services.
What collectivism is not is a synonym for “everything the government does.” There are legitimate reasons why we form governments, and why we grant that government with certain powers. That is, we give up a little autonomy in order to gain things we could not get on our own.
In socialism, all businesses are now the property of the government, who decides what and how much everyone will receive. Imagine an economy with the efficiency of the post office and the compassion of the DMV. Of course, no one will be corrupt, and not a single government official will give money and extra power to their relatives.
It’s great when everyone contributes to a society. The flaw in collectivism is simple: some people will take advantage of the collective contributions of others to reap benefits without themselves having to do a thing to create those benefits. If you’ve ever been involved with a group project in school or at work, you know what I mean.
The difference between a legitimate function of cooperation for mutual benefit and the loss of autonomy found in collective governments is not a bright, hard line. It’s more a shifting from day to night, and somewhere in the middle you realize things have gotten so dark you can no longer see.
That’s how collectivism works- the government has ultimate control over everything from your labor to the factory, farm, or business you perform that labor in. That’s an important difference from a Republic or a free market.
To me, the difference is clear: is the benefit being paid for with tax dollars available to everyone, or just to some? Is the cost borne by everyone, or just a few? Some things to consider:
- A military. Collectivism, or free market? The answer is it can be both. A free market military is either volunteer, or everyone has to serve. If people with power and wealth aren’t forced to participate in the draft, then it’s collectivism. See the Vietnam draft versus the WW2 draft.
- What about fire departments? Again, they can be both. If the fire department is better equipped in a rich neighborhood than a poor one, but everyone pays the same tax to support it, or the opposite: everyone pays different amounts but receives the same service, it’s not free market.
- What about police and the courts? Again, everyone should get the same level of service for the same legal rights, which doesn’t mean they are collectivist.
- Schools. Government run schools are a collectivist policy. Forcing people without kids, or whose kids don’t attend schools to pay for a school system from which they derive no benefit is definitely not free market.
- Social Security and Medicare are not free market and are definitely collectivist. They weren’t intended to be, but there you are. The problem is Social Security was intended to be self supporting, with contributions in your working years being intended to fund the money you received in your retirement. We all know what happened there.
- Medicaid. Collectivist, and has NEVER been free market. Everyone pays, but you have to qualify in order to get it.
- Public Beaches, Parks, and Libraries. Not collectivist. Everyone pays, but its free for everyone. It’s a public service, which is quite different from means tested collectivist perks.
- Roads. Not collectivist. They are funded through tolls and fuel taxes. The people who use them are the ones paying for them.
Now it’s plain to me this government we live in has never been a complete free market. There have been differing levels of service and taxes since forever, and to be quite frank, I am not sure a completely free market can actually exist and still support a cohesive society. Likewise for communism. There is no way that any society made of humans can be completely communist. Some will have more abilities, a stronger work ethic, while others will be more likely to sponge off the system.
What communism attempts to sell is complete equality, but it falls far short- as it must.
What socialism sells is taking from those who produce and giving to those who consume- favoring the sick, lame, stupid, and lazy.
The free market allows some to fail. If an individual can’t or won’t work in a pursuit that ensures they can provide for themselves, they must rely on the charity and good graces of others, and some people just can’t handle that while blaming society and those who produce, rather than the person whose fault it actually is.
10 Comments
The Southern Nationalist · October 24, 2026 at 6:33 am
Two things I’ve heard about socialism:
1. Socialism only works in an insect colony.
2. Socialism is communism without the guns.
Divemedic · October 24, 2026 at 7:22 am
The guns are still there. Just try not paying the taxes and you’ll find them.
TRX · October 24, 2026 at 8:05 am
> The problem is Social Security was intended to be self supporting, with contributions in your working years being intended to fund the money you received in your retirement. We all know what happened there.
—
August 14, 1935: Social Security goes into effect. Originally it was funded by payroll deductions, of which the employer paid half, and generally didn’t show up on a pay stub. Shortly afterward, amendments put the “excess money” (in the early days, everyone paid, but there weren’t that many eligible payees yet) into, basically, an investment portfolio, which would allow increased benefits or lower payroll contributions.
August 15, 1935: [Congress] “Money! Moneymoneymoneymoney, oh Gawd, money we can stea… appropriate for better causes! And we’ll totally pay it all back later, pinky swear.”
And they never did, which is why Social Security is now supported by Federal income tax money as well as payroll deductions. The investment portfolio is a “trust fund” now, conveniently limited to… US Government bonds and securities. The same US Government that’s broke, ass-deep in debt, and only skirting bankruptcy (excuse me, “economic adjustment”) by passing skeevy laws and regulations to keep kicking the can down the road, hopefully until the present incumbents are out of office.
Fido · October 24, 2026 at 3:31 pm
SS was supposed to *force* people to save for their retirement, without their consent. The promise was that it would be “invested” at “higher than inflation” intrerest, then returned to you in old age.
It was always unconstitutional, because it directs how you must spend your money… so they just ruled it a “tax”, as they later did with “obomaacare” for the same reason… even though authors of *both* made it clear it was *not* a tax. Courts are just as corrupt as the rest of gov, if not more so.
They stole the money with a promise. They should be held to their pomise. No one should be forced to pay into it.
As a mathematical fact, the promise will *not* be kept, and the dollar will inflate to infinity… or rather, it already has: The currency was massively inflated since the fed based it on debt, but printing money does not cause inflation until it goes into cirulation, and then only in the markets where it curculates. For *many* decades, it all went off shore to become “the petrodollar”, and “world reserve currency”, exporting the inflation. That’s was a *MASSIVE* market, but it finally saturated awhile back, and they stared pumping it into the stock markets.
The DOW, the DOW right now, is over 50 thou… just inflation. As share holders sell and take profit, that inflation moves into other markets, crating general inflation… and
General inflation scares foriegn holders of the dollar…decades and decades of massive printing moved off shore… so that currency moves back to the states… general inflation *causing* general inflation. An exponentioal feedback mechanism.
This was all done when I was a child. No way to take back what was done. The hyper inflation begins now… but the funny part is that the effect will be global, so many may not notice that it’s inflation, since we usually measure the value of currency as a ratio, usually to other currencies, not to chicken eggs.
Fido · October 24, 2026 at 2:44 pm
The word “cooperation” implies consent.
As always, the issue is consent. Free will.
A goverment that taxes everyone, even unevenly, unfairly, and redistribtes it, even unevenly, unfairly, is *not* socialist, if has theconsent of *all* of it’s citizens.
Without their consent, it *is* socialist.
Even our incom tax code *still* says it is voluntary. A previous attempt was found unconstitutional, so the current was was made voluntary, and only applied to an insignificant portion of the population. The federal reserve, created about the same time, began the inflation that would make the tax apply to everyone.
Any government, of any kind, doing *anytyhing*, is only tyranny when you have removed your consent, and *then* only when it initiates violence against you.
Divemedic · October 24, 2026 at 3:46 pm
I know many tax resisters make that claim. Im going to need evidence of that.
Fido · October 24, 2026 at 4:10 pm
Find the text of the income tax code in digital form, grep for “voluntary”.
Divemedic · October 24, 2026 at 4:36 pm
The person making the claim is the one responsible for providing the evidence. Im not your research department
Fido · October 24, 2026 at 4:13 pm
“tax resisters” who take it court, almost always win in criminal court, and almost always lose in civil court. So yeah, you’re not going to win.
Also: If you file, you volunteered.
Divemedic · October 24, 2026 at 4:37 pm
Tell that to wesley Snipes. This is the last unsupported post I will permit on this topic.
Comments are closed.