The current wedge being forced between Democrats is the moderate versus the Democratic Socialists or America (DSA).

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has been made the poster of the DSA movement.

Regular Democrats want social programs that work within the system of capitalism.

This Democratic approach of being the foil orlf Republicans has resulted in mostly inertia as there is still no universal healthcare or affordable housing or childcare.

The DSA is being labelled the radical wing of the party with an agenda to burn down the system of capitalism & dismantle government & other institutions.

Of course, the solution to taking care of the American people especially the less fortunate lies somewhere in the middle.

The USA has enough capacity to support both capitalism & provide universal healthcare.

in order to get there, wealthy people have to take less. Nobody should be a billionaire or trillionaire anyway.😎

The USA has reached two hundred and fifty years.

Starting off as a fiscal capitalistic country with tons of financial imbalances, regardless that they were legal. .

Now a populace, getting larger and larger, within the usa seems to want the usa to become what it was never, a place for all in it to be content.

We will see, but I will end with what I always do for all governments anywhere or anytime in humanity.

their most negative times are always built in the times suggested as positive or acceptible, their gilded ages, their glorious or advertised wins is usually the times where the seeds of the worst times were laid.

There are many reasons Americans of various income levels are against Socialism........

-Some are just brainwashed by right-wing media talking points to be against Socialism.

-Others are against it because Socialism and especially Communism advocates for WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION....meaning taking some money and resources away from those who have it and giving it to those who don't.

-Some have studied Socialist societies around the planet and recognize that they tend to cannibalize themselves and self-destruct.
This tends to be a particularly accurate assessment of many if not most Socialist societies except for extreme dictatorships like North Korea.


Personally, I'd prefer a MIXED economy.....similar to what we have in the United States.
A mixture of Capitalism and Socialism, properly balanced.

Too much Capitalism leads to inequalities and tends to feed the "isms" like racism, sexism, classism, etc......
Too much Socialism tends to make people lazy and stagnates growth because when everybody's getting their needs met, there is no great incentive to keep working.

I know a LOT of people that if they were to get free housing, food, and clothing....they'd QUIT working overnight.
They'd spend the rest of their life getting drunk, high, and getting into trouble.

There would be no incentive for inventing anything or marketing it because you're not going to get rich anyway.
If you DO invent something, the government will just take it and manufacture it for themselves and the public in general and you don't get any credit for it.
So where is the incentive?

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Personally, I'd prefer a MIXED economy.....similar to what we have in the United States.
A mixture of Capitalism and Socialism, properly balanced.

Right. Properly balanced, a mix of capitalism & socialism would be ideal.

The problem here in the USA & globally is that capitalism & socialism are imbalanced.

A very small minority of the population controls a majority of the wealth.

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Too much Socialism tends to make people lazy and stagnates growth because when everybody's getting their needs met, there is no great incentive to keep working.

People are led to believe they have to work hard enriching someone else in order to live relatively well.

As result, the majority of people end up on a hamster wheel earning just enough money to meet their basic needs.

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

There would be no incentive for inventing anything or marketing it because you're not going to get rich anyway.

Socialism doesn't prevent creative & enterprising individuals from capitalizing on their inventions, technologies & businesses.

Only a very small minority of people invent things that make them wealthy.

Otherwise, since the Industrial revolution, most inventions are produced by companies & corporations & government-controlled entities.

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

If you DO invent something, the government will just take it and manufacture it for themselves and the public in general and you don't get any credit for it.
So where is the incentive?

Communism doesn't allow individuals to own anything. Socialism is not as extreme.

People who are smart, creative, gifted, talented, driven, etc,, are going to produce regardless. They do not require an incentive. Compensation is icing on the cake.

OTOH, lazy people have to be motivated to do something other than lay around & do little or nothing with their time & energy. They require a carrot & stick.

Socialism as a system where the basic needs of people are met will not create a lazy society. Nor will it undermine capitalism.

Non-rich people railing against socialism reminds me of poor people being diehard Republicans.🤣😎

ProfD

Right. Properly balanced, a mix of capitalism & socialism would be ideal.

The problem here in the USA & globally is that capitalism & socialism are imbalanced.

A very small minority of the population controls a majority of the wealth.

True.

I suspect that even with a proper balance, much if not most of the wealth would still be owned by a minority of people because that's human nature in general.

Some people are just naturally smarter and more ambitious than the rest of the population.

Under normal and fair conditions THEY would naturally rise to the top anyway.

People are led to believe they have to work hard enriching someone else in order to live relatively well.

As result, the majority of people end up on a hamster wheel earning just enough money to meet their basic needs.

Great point.

That's why when somebody says they're working hard, I tell them don't work HARD...work SMART.

Socialism doesn't prevent creative & enterprising individuals from capitalizing on their inventions, technologies & businesses.

In some cases it does.

In many cases it prohibits the individual from CAPITALIZING off of their invention and emphasizes their responsibility to share it with the rest of their community.

Problem is, I may or may not share those values.

It pretty much FORCES you to give charity, lol.

Communism doesn't allow individuals to own anything. Socialism is not as extreme.

Communism is the final conclusion of Socialistic philosophy.

People who are smart, creative, gifted, talented, driven, etc,, are going to produce regardless. They do not require an incentive. Compensation is icing on the cake.

In some cases people are self motivated.

In other cases they need an external motivator or incentive.

Different strokes for different folks.

We shouldn't take that incentive away and FORCE them to "produce" just because.

OTOH, lazy people have to be motivated to do something other than lay around & do little or nothing with their time & energy. They require a carrot & stick.

Lol...that's most people.

Socialism as a system where the basic needs of people are met will not create a lazy society.

Socialism needs Capitalism to generate the wealth to redistribute, much like a parasite needs a host to live off of.
There would be no wealth to redistribute if private industries weren't using the incentive for making money to produce wealth.

Can you point to atleast 3 Socialist nations where the people are inventive and thriving?

I don't mean a nation like Sweden or Canada which are a MIX of Capitalism and Socialism, but 3 purely Socialist nations.

I think Jim Jones tried to start one down in South America back in the 70s.

Nor will it undermine capitalism.

Non-rich people railing against socialism reminds me of poor people being diehard Republicans.

When you hear White folks talking anti-socialist rhetoric, you have to take that with a grain of salt.

Their real political ideology isn't Capitalism, Socialism, or Conservatism....it's RACISM.

They'll condemn Socialism in one breath and then turn around and embrace it and weaponize it for their own ends.

Look how Hitler took Socialism and incorporated it into his rightwing racist ideology.

27 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

I suspect that even with a proper balance, much if not most of the wealth would still be owned by a minority of people because that's human nature in general.

Sure. A minority would be wealthy. There would be no poverty with the right balance.

27 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Some people are just naturally smarter and more ambitious than the rest of the population.

Under normal and fair conditions THEY would naturally rise to the top anyway.

Being smart does not guarantee wealth or success.

Ambition & determination go a long way especially for people who are willing to do anything to make it to the top.

27 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

That's why when somebody says they're working hard, I tell them don't work HARD...work SMART.

Absolutely. Hard work breaks a human body down faster.

Working smart & eating healthy & regular exercise helps the human body last longer.

27 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Communism is the final conclusion of Socialistic philosophy.

Socialism should never get that carried away.🤣

27 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

In some cases people are self motivated.

In other cases they need an external motivator or incentive.

Different strokes for different folks.

We shouldn't take that incentive away and FORCE them to "produce" just because.

Children (< 21 yrs old) & elderly people (>55 yrs old) should be exempt from production.

Able-bodied adults between the age of 21-55 years old should be forced to produce especially if incentives aren't enough motivation.

27 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Socialism needs Capitalism to generate the wealth to redistribute, much like a parasite needs a host to live off of.
There would be no wealth to redistribute if private industries weren't using the incentive for making money to produce wealth.

Socialism would take care of basic needs. Taxation would redistribute wealth.

27 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Can you point to atleast 3 Socialist nations where the people are inventive and thriving?

I don't mean a nation like Sweden or Canada which are a MIX of Capitalism and Socialism, but 3 purely Socialist nations.

It's not about a socialist nation thriving moreso than providing a basic quality of life for every citizen.

Every person on the planet should have healthcare & housing & food. Nobody should be poor or homeless or starving.

Especially not in a world where people are multimillionaires, billionaires & a trillionaire.😎

ProfD

Sure. A minority would be wealthy. There would be no poverty with the right balance.

Perhaps in your ideal economy poverty is totally eliminated.

In my ideal economy it's not.

We have a huge healthy middle class but poverty exists for individual reasons, however we'd have a strong safety net to prevent people from ending up in destitution.

Being smart does not guarantee wealth or success.

True, but it makes success more likely.

Just like being strong and fast doesn't guarantee a person will be a good athlete, but it makes it more likely.

Ambition & determination go a long way especially for people who are willing to do anything to make it to the top.

True.

Being smart helps with ambition and determination.

If you can figure things out easy and avoid the traps set for you, you're develop more stamina and confidence in yourself.

Socialism should never get that carried away.

It depends on the leaders in charge.

Just like some religious extremists INSIST they are the righteous ones and that everyone else should follow their way of thinking, some socialists think THEIR way of thinking is the best and will insist that everyone follow it for the good of the nation.

Able-bodied adults between the age of 21-55 years old should be forced to produce especially if incentives aren't enough motivation.

See, and this is the issue.....you said FORCED.

I think a person has a right to be lazy if they want to.

If they want to lay around and do nothing and mooch off of their friends and relatives, they should have that right as long as they don't rob or steal.

We're not going to give them any money or PAY them to do nothing, but we wouldn't force them either.

However in many Communist/Socialist nations...like North Korea and Cuba...people are forced to work.

Socialism would take care of basic needs. Taxation would redistribute wealth.

Without Capitalists investing in business and keeping industry going, there may not BE a lot of wealth to redistribute...lol.

It's not about a socialist nation thriving moreso than providing a basic quality of life for every citizen.

Every person on the planet should have healthcare & housing & food. Nobody should be poor or homeless or starving.

I agree.

They can be poor, but not homeless or starving.

Perhaps you and I have different definitions of poor and poverty though.

If you are homeless or starving you are BEYOND poor....you are DESTITUTE.

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Perhaps in your ideal economy poverty is totally eliminated.

In my ideal economy it's not.

We have a huge healthy middle class but poverty exists for individual reasons, however we'd have a strong safety net to prevent people from ending up in destitution.

Looks like we fundamentally disagree again.🤣

I cannot think of one good reason that poverty should exist.

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Ambition & determination go a long way especially for people who are willing to do anything to make it to the top.

True.

Being smart helps with ambition and determination.

If you can figure things out easy and avoid the traps set for you, you're develop more stamina and confidence in yourself.

There are plenty people who would not consider themselves smart but their grit, will, ambition & determination forced them to put in the work to be successful.

OTOH, there are plenty folks who would be classified as intelligent based on their aptitude & test scores & degrees, yet, they are under-employed & broke.

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Able-bodied adults between the age of 21-55 years old should be forced to produce especially if incentives aren't enough motivation.

See, and this is the issue.....you said FORCED.

I think a person has a right to be lazy if they want to.

If they want to lay around and do nothing and mooch off of their friends and relatives, they should have that right as long as they don't rob or steal.

We're not going to give them any money or PAY them to do nothing, but we wouldn't force them either.

However in many Communist/Socialist nations...like North Korea and Cuba...people are forced to work.

Another fundamental disagreement. 😁

There is a reason the crime rate in a place like North Korea is basically non-existent too.

Working people don't have time &/or a reason to run around committing crimes.

In those places, there's also severe punishments that come with crime too.

The people find it easier to put their heads down & keep their shoulders to the plow.

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Socialism would take care of basic needs. Taxation would redistribute wealth.

Without Capitalists investing in business and keeping industry going, there may not BE a lot of wealth to redistribute...lol.

The question becomes who really needs to be wealthy.

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

It's not about a socialist nation thriving moreso than providing a basic quality of life for every citizen.

Every person on the planet should have healthcare & housing & food. Nobody should be poor or homeless or starving.

I agree.

They can be poor, but not homeless or starving.

Perhaps you and I have different definitions of poor and poverty though.

If you are homeless or starving you are BEYOND poor....you are DESTITUTE.

There is no reason to qualify &/or rationalize poverty, poor or destitution. No human being deserves to live in that condition.

The world is filled with more than enough resources to provide every human being on the planet with a decent quality of life.

Greed & power are the only reasons people believe the world has to consist of haves & have nots & whatever lies in the middle.😎

ProfD

I cannot think of one good reason that poverty should exist.

Outside of racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination, I can think of several............

Some people are just lazy or dumb or both, so they won't economically rise above barely making a living for themselves.

No amount of government or social help will prevent that.

There are plenty people who would not consider themselves smart but their grit, will, ambition & determination forced them to put in the work to be successful.

OTOH, there are plenty folks who would be classified as intelligent based on their aptitude & test scores & degrees, yet, they are under-employed & broke.

In both cases....are these the rule or the exception?

Are most people who are successful, in that position because of "hard work" and "grit" or because they were smart and made the right decisions?

Another fundamental disagreement.

I take that to mean that you AGREE with forcing people to work, even if it's against their will?

The question becomes who really needs to be wealthy.

I'll answer that....lol.

Anybody who wants to, as long as they are depriving others in doing so.

Who are me, you, or anybody else to deny someone that pleasure in life?

By what moral or ethical standard is this based on?

There is no reason to qualify &/or rationalize poverty, poor or destitution. No human being deserves to live in that condition.

If a person did nothing but steal from and harm others, I think they deserve to be in that position.

Unless they spent much of their life helping others, if they are just to lazy to work....they deserve to be in poverty.

If they are stupid....unless it's as a result of illegal drug use...they generally can't help themselves.

It's not their fault that they were born with low intelligence.

I'm not sure if they deserve poverty for this.

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Some people are just lazy or dumb or both, so they won't economically rise above barely making a living for themselves.

No amount of government or social help will prevent that.

Neely Fuller Jr. always said we have a responsibility to insure that whoever needs the most help gets it.

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

In both cases....are these the rule or the exception?

Are most people who are successful, in that position because of "hard work" and "grit" or because they were smart and made the right decisions?

It takes a combination of factors including opportunities & luck to become successful.

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Another fundamental disagreement.

I take that to mean that you AGREE with forcing people to work, even if it's against their will?

Yep. Especially able-bodied people between 21-59 years old.

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The question becomes who really needs to be wealthy.

I'll answer that....lol.

Anybody who wants to, as long as they are depriving others in doing so.

Who are me, you, or anybody else to deny someone that pleasure in life?

By what moral or ethical standard is this based on?

Asking the question(s) doesn't deny people of life pleasures.

The problem with wealth is that it usually comes at the expense of others.

The concentration of wealth lies in the hands of too few. It needs to be redistributed.

Otherwse, as human beings we should do a better job of taking care of each other.

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

There is no reason to qualify &/or rationalize poverty, poor or destitution. No human being deserves to live in that condition.

If a person did nothing but steal from and harm others, I think they deserve to be in that position.

Unless they spent much of their life helping others, if they are just to lazy to work....they deserve to be in poverty.

If they are stupid....unless it's as a result of illegal drug use...they generally can't help themselves.

It's not their fault that they were born with low intelligence.

I'm not sure if they deserve poverty for this.

Humans create the conditions by which others become poor, destitute & poverty-stricken. 😎

ProfD

Neely Fuller Jr. always said we have a responsibility to insure that whoever needs the most help gets it.

Neely Fuller Jr. didn't have to manage a society.

He was a social COMMENTATOR who commented about his observations of society.
He didn't have to build or manage one...lol.

There are other ways of helping poor people instead of forcibly TAKING money from the wealthy and GIVING IT AWAY to those who haven't earned it.

Yep. Especially able-bodied people between 21-59 years old.

VGQ...lol.

Phil Scott of the African Diaspora Channel agrees with you though.

He often says that men...especially young men....should be working to stay out of trouble.

Asking the question(s) doesn't deny people of life pleasures.

The problem with wealth is that it usually comes at the expense of others.

You can say the same thing about anything in society.

Eating the food you're enjoying came at the expense of somebody ELSE'S labor.
It's called a "social contract" where people exchange goods and services with eachother to keep society moving.

The concentration of wealth lies in the hands of too few. It needs to be redistributed.

If people got their wealth through illegal or immoral ways, that needs to be investigated and properly dealt with.

Other than that....I say leave them and their wealth alone and stay out of their pockets.

If you want to help poor people...HELP them.

You don't need to rob the rich to do it.

But like Reverend Ike once famously and wisely said,

"The best thing you can do for poor people is NOT be one of them"

Otherwse, as human beings we should do a better job of taking care of each other.

Most human beings have enough responsibilities dealing with their own personal problems.
That's what GOVERNMENTS exist for...to help their citizens.

Why should I scold the church or rich people for not helping the poor of society while the government is wasting BILLIONS in the deserts of Iran?

Who has the most money, Bill Gates or the U.S. government?

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

There are other ways of helping poor people instead of forcibly TAKING money from the wealthy and GIVING IT AWAY to those who haven't earned it.

Taxation doesn't take money by force. Problem is wealthy people do not pay a proportional amount compared to lower classes.

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Yep. Especially able-bodied people between 21-59 years old.

VGQ...lol.

Phil Scott of the African Diaspora Channel agrees with you though.

He often says that men...especially young men....should be working to stay out of trouble.

The working folks will get paid a livable wage unlike chattel slavery.

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Asking the question(s) doesn't deny people of life pleasures.

The problem with wealth is that it usually comes at the expense of others.

You can say the same thing about anything in society.

Eating the food you're enjoying came at the expense of somebody ELSE'S labor.
It's called a "social contract" where people exchange goods and services with eachother to keep society moving.

There's a difference between the social contract that governments use to take care of people & the maximum profit-oriented approach of free market enterprise.

Today, there are exploitative working conditions that migrant workers endure in jobs that American workers wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The concentration of wealth lies in the hands of too few. It needs to be redistributed.

If people got their wealth through illegal or immoral ways, that needs to be investigated and properly dealt with.

Other than that....I say leave them and their wealth alone and stay out of their pockets.

The question is how one defines illegal & immoral. The same white folks who created those laws allow wealthy people cheat, er, hide their money by manipulating tax laws.

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

If you want to help poor people...HELP them.

You don't need to rob the rich to do it.

There's a difference between robbing someone of their money & taxing them for the privilege of living within a system that allows them to earn it.

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

But like Reverend Ike once famously and wisely said,

"The best thing you can do for poor people is NOT be one of them"

There is a fine line between poor & any other class.

Again, nobody has to be poor in the richest nation on the planet.

Class is a construct that creates certain conditions that can be further exploited for employment & profit.

Social services, law enforcement, legal system & medical industry to name a few benefit from chaos & confusion. Wealthy people benefit even moreso.

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Otherwse, as human beings we should do a better job of taking care of each other.

Most human beings have enough responsibilities dealing with their own personal problems.
That's what GOVERNMENTS exist for...to help their citizens.

Beyond mental health issues, most personal problems stem from having limited resources.

When I refer to people doing a better job of taking care of each other, it doesn't mean they individually have to stop whatever they're doing to help someone else.

Humans taking care of each other is supporting institutions that serve as societal safety nets.

Paying taxes or giving to charities or donating food are ways of helping each other that require very little effort.

Governments are the overarching agency with the responsibility of taking care of its citizens.

Anyone with more resources than they can possibly spend in their lifetime or the next can definitely help others.

There's no such thing as pocket watching a multimillionaire or billionaire or trillionaire. They have so much money that it doesn't fit in their pockets or one Brinks truck.🤣

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Why should I scold the church or rich people for not helping the poor of society while the government is wasting BILLIONS in the deserts of Iran?

All should be scolded if they are wasting money on material things & wars.

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Who has the most money, Bill Gates or the U.S. government?

Their money comes from the people whether it is taxation or consumption of products, goods & services.

People have the power to determine how resources are utilized. Their main limitations are selfishness or personal greed or lack of empathy & compassion for others.

Society has a way of conditioning the masses of people to think & act in certain ways to achieve desired outcomes which includes the maintenance of class based systems.😎

ProfD



Taxation doesn't take money by force. Problem is wealthy people do not pay a proportional amount compared to lower classes.

Since I'm not rich, I'm not sure what's really going on with rich people and the tax situation in the United States.
I used to think everybody was under a flat tax and we all paid the same percentage.
Then I found out the U.S. has a progressive tax system where the higher your income the bigger PERCENTAGE of your money they take!
Which isn't fair in my opinion.

This has to atleast contribute to a lot of the games many rich people are forced to play to keep their money from being confiscated from them unfairly.

If we had a fair tax system that taxed everyone at the same rate, I believe most wealthy people would be less likely to play games and look for loopholes to avoid paying.

The working folks will get paid a livable wage unlike chattel slavery.

Who's going to guarantee this?
Will the government be paying them directly?
Or will the government FORCE private businesses to pay their employees a certain rate?






Today, there are exploitative working conditions that migrant workers endure in jobs that American workers wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

Correct, but THEY'RE not complaining.
Many of them are happy as hell for the opportunity TO work and get SOMETHING, compared to where they came from.





The question is how one defines illegal & immoral. The same white folks who created those laws allow wealthy people cheat, er, hide their money by manipulating tax laws.

It's simple.
Illegal means against the law...whether those laws are Constitutional, Federal, State, or Local.
Immoral means unrighteous. Not right or just.




There's a difference between robbing someone of their money & taxing them for the privilege of living within a system that allows them to earn it.

True.
But what good is allowing them to earn it if you're going to turn around and TAKE it from them???

You're basically raising a fatted calf or pig to be slaughtered and fed.




Again, nobody has to be poor in the richest nation on the planet.
Class is a construct that creates certain conditions that can be further exploited for employment & profit.

Class is a construct, but an inevitable one because EVERY society has a class structure.
Some are more complex than others.

Even a remote tribe in the middle of the jungle has a "chief" and him and his associates are in a higher class than the rest of the tribe.




Social services, law enforcement, legal system & medical industry to name a few benefit from chaos & confusion. Wealthy people benefit even moreso.

So it would behoove one to GET OUT of poverty if they can, so they won't fall victim to this chaos and confusion.




Beyond mental health issues, most personal problems stem from having limited resources.

Facts.




When I refer to people doing a better job of taking care of each other, it doesn't mean they individually have to stop whatever they're doing to help someone else.
Humans taking care of each other is supporting institutions that serve as societal safety nets.

I agree.






Paying taxes or giving to charities or donating food are ways of helping each other that require very little effort.

I agree, as long as those taxes aren't unfairly or extraordinarily high out of proportion.
When taxes become too high, it then becomes a PUNISHMENT for earning money and discourages people from being productive in the first place.

Why work hard and smart and try to get rich, if somebody is just going to take your wealth from you anyway???



Governments are the overarching agency with the responsibility of taking care of its citizens.
Anyone with more resources than they can possibly spend in their lifetime or the next can definitely help others.

You're right.
However don't neglect the fact that many people would rather most of their excess and disposable resources be PASSED DOWN to their children, grand children, and great grand children; instead of redistributed to strangers who didn't earn it.

There's no such thing as pocket watching a multimillionaire or billionaire or trillionaire. They have so much money that it doesn't fit in their pockets or one Brinks truck.🤣

But it's still THEIR money.

You may have a wife and girlfriend on the side.
The brutha with NO luck with women may see it as only fair that since you have so many women you should share YOUR WIFE with him a couple nights a week because he's lacking.




All should be scolded if they are wasting money on material things & wars.

If those material things make them happy AND it's not harming others, I say let them have at it.






Society has a way of conditioning the masses of people to think & act in certain ways to achieve desired outcomes which includes the maintenance of class based systems

True.
However when it comes to "fantasy" societies like Communist and Socialist systems, there's a reason most of those societies don't last longer than 100 years.
They LOOK good on paper, but are impractical because they don't take human nature and human desires into account.

Any system that FORCES everybody to live the same way with the same amount of money despite differences in intelligence, skill, and ambition; is a system that is oppressive and will ultimately fail and implode on itself.

Humans are NATURALLY uneven and unequal.....just like the fingers on your hand.
Any attempt to "even out" humanity will be just as harmful as attempting to "even out" the fingers on your hand....lol.