Socialists like these laws because they put the means of production into the hands of the worker who would otherwise have to sell his labor for the rate dictated by some capitalist, or live off of the government unemployment benefit indefinitely.
I don't know anything about money being taken at the point of a gun and no one in the american socialist party would condone such so we are all on the same page here.
They can like chocolate cake too, it doesn't make chocolate cake Socialist. There you go again with the nebulous Communist buzzwords that are almost completely meaningless at this point.
Exactly, you are totally unaware of the results of these policies. Let me spell it out for you.
With your belly full of warmth and a smile on your face you write up some subsidies that are going to "put the means of production back in the worker's hands" whatever the fuck that means in reality. This subsidy then has to be provided by the government. The government does not produce anything, so it needs to pay for this subsidy with taxes of one form or another. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come and MAKE you pay your taxes and possibly also put you in a cage.
All Socialists promote taking money from the productive at the point of a gun, otherwise it would just be called charity.
You still are me. We have the same views on just about everything here. The main thing we disagree on the semantics of the word socialism. You have switched the words capitalism and socialism and think that I (and all dictionaries as well as the American socialist party) are the ones who have switched them. I understand that you are basing your definition of socialism on the behaviors of governments that have operated under the name "socialist" or "communist" party and that is probably a position shared by people who lived in the former soviet union. I will concede this because it is not worth arguing over what word to use to classify an economic system by when we all agree on basic principles that are is bad and good.
Lets just call them System 1 and System 2.
System 1: People are oppressed by a power hierarchy. The fruits of labor are stolen by force or contract. People do not have the liberty to do what they want with their own lives. In the end, needs are not even met.
System 2: People live in freedom and have control over their own lives. People are entitled to the fruits of their labor and have the opportunity to be innovative entrepreneurs. Morale is high.
Why quibble over silly semantics when we could discuss actual differences with respect to the correct means to the same end? We all (correct me if I'm wrong) hate system 1 and want system 2. That means it is not productive to continue to talk about how system 1 has failed in the past. We agree on the end but perhaps we differ on the means to that end. Why not talk about that instead of arguing about which word to use to describe things we agree on.
We may share a lot of views, I don't know that for sure. However this is not about semantics. This is about causality, and how this particular ideology, usually even motivated by good intent, has a step by step path laid out for it to turn into a totalitarian dystopian society. Communism was LITERALLY FUNDED BY the Western banking elite in the US and Europe. The ideology is the fruit of a poison tree. Your analogy above is again simplistic and ill-defined.
Human beings are in fact VERY PREDICTABLE, and if you leave them any room to take more power and control, they will. Socialism is like locking a bunch of children in a toy store over night and trusting they will not touch any of the toys. In this analogy the bureaucrats are the children and the toys are our lives and means of survival. Socialism and Communism not only ignore basic human drives and behavior, they ignore the laws of economics, largely based on math. From practically any academic angle you approach Communism from, Communism/Socialism/Marxism fail examination. This is not simply a semantic disagreement between us, but perhaps maybe with yourself.