New class of posters

[BloodEclipse]

Or, can anybody cite a true socialist system, that is a shinning example of real Socialism that works?

Families.

While families do indeed have a bit of socialism in their structure, they are not at all like a state run system.
There are rewards in families for doing more than your fair share. Good families also provide for the betterment of the members. They don't create a lifelong dependency mentality.
State run systems punish accomplishment and reward failure. Families don't fit that model.

 

[Fletch]

I would call that charity rather than socialism, but that's just me. Charity is a virtue.

Helping someone else voluntarily is a good thing. That's increasingly difficult to do as the level of socialism (coerced) increases, because the more you're taxed, the less you are able to help yourself or anyone else of your own volition.

I called it socialism because I was thinking specifically of the passage at the end of Acts 2:

44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Repeated in Acts 4:

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.

And then in Acts 5, Peter even makes a point of reaffirming the property rights of those who gave, while condemning a man and his wife who said they were giving more than they actually were:

1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet. 3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

What's described here is closer to socialism than charity -- it's just wealth thrown into a pot, with the expectation that anyone who comes along to use it will only use what they need. Charity, it seems to me, is "see a need and meet it", while this is "make my wealth available to anyone who has need, whether such people exist or not"... or, "from me according to my ability, to all according to their need". It is specifically described as a voluntary act that no one was forced to participate in, thus my attempt to make the distinction in the previous post between voluntary and involuntary socialism.

 

[Fletch]

While families do indeed have a bit of socialism in their structure, they are not at all like a state run system.
There are rewards in families for doing more than your fair share. Good families also provide for the betterment of the members. They don't create a lifelong dependency mentality.

Healthy ones don't, anyway.

State run systems punish accomplishment and reward failure. Families don't fit that model.

See above.