What is Your Definition of Socialism?

The ideology is great, but where has it been successfully implemented ?

In a perfect world, where every human had the same or similar capabilities, physical and mental, the same or similar energy and ambition, and the same or similar values -- like the quite homogeneous Scandinavian societies in Northern Europe, Socialism and perhaps even communism may work and it might be a wonderful thing.

Unfortunately, at least in the US, none of those conditions exist today, existed in the past, or are likely to exist in the future. Some elements of socialism are perhaps essential to a well and functioning society, such as taking care of those who are incapable due to illness, age, or disability of taking care of themselves.

American citizen taxpayers have no moral obligation and no legal obligation according to the US Constitution to have to support others who are fully capable of supporting themselves, even if they do not like doing so, refuse to prepare themselves to do so, and do all in their power to avoid doing so. The fact that they failed by their own choosing to complete the education provided to them, admittedly often far from perfect, with the consequence that they are qualified only to perform menial labor, is not the responsibility of the rest of us and therefore creates no requirement that those of us who do work must support those who do not.

Before anyone attempts to claim that I am being racist -- let us all acknowledge that there are far more indigent, uneducated, non-working poor white people in this country than there are those of other races.

Regarding Christianity, Christianity does not teach and does not require Christians to allow their property and the product of their labor to be taken by force or by threat of force and given to others who do not, of their free will, complete their education or work to support themselves and otherwise act in an irresponsible manner.

If I, as a Christian, in accord with the teachings of my faith, choose to give some portion of my wealth or my labor to help others, that is an act of goodness and charity. Charity buys me nothing. It conveys on me no special privilege or precedent. It is simply a demonstration mainly to myself, of my faith. According to Christian belief, the only requirement to be accepted into heaven is to ask the Lord to forgive our sins and to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. This applies to good men and bad alike and it is why Christ gave up his life on the cross.

And truth be told, at least here in the US, Christians give by far the largest portion of all charitable giving in this nation. To the contrary, what the Government forces me to "give" or "contribute" is not charity, it is taxation

You originally asked about "socialism". So why are you now talking about communism ? They are not quite the same.
Many Christians are compelled by their denominations to "tithe" ~ give a set percentage of their income to the church. They can justify it in the Bible and very few of the "faithful" protest by leaving their churches. So whether or not it's mandatory doesn't really seem to be the issue. That probably also factors into the "charitable giving" percentage of which you speak. Not to mention that it's tax-deductible.

In your first response to my question, you said "Since at its root it's about the concept of community and sharing, I'm surprised people who call themselves "Christians" are generally so against it." My answer was not in regard to communism, rather it was in direct response to your statement. Christians are not in any way against charity and our giving demonstrates this. Many of us are however against being forcibly required by our Government to support others who are physically and mentally capable of supporting themselves but choose, by various means, not to do so.

And YOU make the judgment whether or not they can, right ? It sounds like you're assessing things based upon a system that provides welfare (like our capitalist system of government); potentially a socialist system would provide people with a way to work for a living wage and save the assistance for the very elderly and those who were provably disabled.

My money, my right to judge. Your money, your right to judge. No one has the legal Constitutional right in the US to redistribute money and wealth from one person to another, regardless of current practice. I do not judge anyone's life, so long as I am not asked to support it or their choices. I never have asked for government help even at times when I may have "needed it" and probably "qualified for it."

Welfare is a form of socialism as its intended purpose, as it now works, is to transfer wealth from one group of citizens to another. Some of those people have legitimate need and I do not resent helping them. Others, by their chosen lifestyle, are not deserving of our support.

Do you think taxation in general is unconstitutional ? I'd rather my taxes be used to help my fellow citizens who would be homeless otherwise than used to kill people overseas, but I don't get to decide. I've never used public resources, either.

Unfortunately, the 16th Amendment gave the US Government the power to tax income. They already had power to tax, so no, taxation is not unconstitutional.

I would make a major distinction between defending our nation and national interests and foreign adventurism. Therefore i partially agree with your preference for helping the homeless over killing people. I think what we did in the late 1970s and early 1980s when we closed most mental institutions and kicked the mentally ill out into the streets was a terrible thing and we need to do a better job of taking care of the mentally ill and homeless.

I often wonder how many Billions of square feet of empty office building and malls are sitting vacant as a tax dodge when some of that space could be taken over, converted, and given to people who need help, as long as they maintain the property?