I wouldn't even "honor" that loser with a second of my time.
However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of solidarity, equality and liberty, viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.
Karl Marx considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the Western World throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.
Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to Social democracy.- As you see, Marxism is one huge utopia without logical reasoning.
Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on Public choice theory that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.
Svetlana Kunin, who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 explains how the system worked:
A government which adheres to economic socialistic principles also tends to have cultures which prize unmerited equality among citizen and criminal alike, and through extension of socialistic welfare policies, between the chronically employed and the chronically unemployed, by ensuring both groups receive income though only one group works for income. This enables people otherwise healthy to not seek gainful employment because they will receive income no matter their actions, thus providing no incentive to produce. The economies of socialistic governments are thus weak and riddled with flaws, such as expecting increased production from a reduced workforce, and when engendered with a progressive culture, which simply means people who do are the same as people who do not, eventually fall under the weight of their own poorly managed and over-extended public welfare institutions. Public welfare also decreases personal charity, thus making the people dependent on the aid of the government since charitable aid, such as from a church, is discouraged by the secular nature of socialistic nations.
Socialists occasionally appeal to the fact that God, in the Old Testament, commanded His own nation to surrender a tenth of its proceeds for the maintenance of the priests and for the care of the sickly and weak. But, while fallen men, and their secular and pagan nations, shall always struggle to understand the righteous balances between government and liberty. (i.e., between local and national logistics, as well as between the logistics of the individual person and those of his community) the mark of socialism is the general allowance for a naive, and willingly ignorant, adult sub-population whose members prefer, despite the limitations imposed by bureaucratic accountability, to live under all the securities rightly afforded in the fallen world only to infants. In the unfallen world, such security was a given for all persons, but without any of the bureaucracy required in the fallen world for maintaining it. In the fallen world, such security is an unattainable ideal, so that the more is done to attain it, the more the society suffers under the requisite bureaucracy. And, while the initial policy made toward that ideal is the creation of an executive class or executive vocation, such as monarchies and professional armies , there is a 'tipping point' in the creation of bureaucratic entities beyond which any civilization cannot help but increasingly lose its footing in the struggle to balance all its righteous human interests. The result is an ever-increasing proportion of that civilization's total population which, for all variety of reasons, becomes enslaved to their own demands for that ideal of security. When there is no judge who judges righteously, when all the people make the laws, and when the power of money is used to try to stay ahead of the natural consequences of unrighteousness, the 'bad money' cannot help but drive out the 'good money', until the 'Bank of Reality' is forced to call in the loan, and the civilization implodes to the point that it falls victim also to militant invaders and, or, to unmanageable internal unrest. - Another proof that Marxism cannot work as if should.
Supporting illogical utopia without logical consequence like Marxism is does make you madman, since you obviously have no idea, what are you talking about. Having seen you being mad at me for telling you the truth, I ask: since you hate the truth, will you be mad if I tell you that 2+2=4 ? Rules of logic imply, that you should be mad at me for telling that, unless your debilitating mental disorder forbids you understanding simple maths.
Not a communist but...
Point 1 and 4 are exaggerations. The USSR wanted to rule the world so there were no more wars and the communist believed that humanity is the most important thing in their world (they were hypocrites).