I appreciate that you put a lot of thought into your response but I think you missed the plot. I know damn well what "comrade" means. It's one of those words with a stereotype attached to it. There are lots of words that change meaning in that way. I could call someone "my dear _" and people will assume that I'm talking to a romantic interest, because it's so weird to use the expression now in normal conversation. Likewise, if you shout out "I'm so gay!" the first thought people will have is that you are a homosexual, rather than you are in a good mood.
>That's quite literally the biggest difference between socialism and communism, the long run.
Without getting into a huge discussion on this, books have been written to try to draw a line between these two things. Ultimately they refer to the same thing, a deviation from a free market and society. To support people who have less, they must steal from those who have more. Socialism or socialist policies (such as the type we have in the United States, not the kind that most original socialists were writing about) is like a concerning lump that might turn out to be nothing more than a nuisance. Communism is Stage 4 cancer.
>A society of equals first.
This is easiest to achieve when people have a certain amount in common. But even among the most homogeneous society, differences are ever present and naturally result in different outcomes. The only sense in which we can fairly approach equality is in being equally protected by the law. If you insist on siphoning off the financial resources of those who provide valuable services to benefit others merely for existing, the worse off everyone is going to be. Many books have been written to prove that this is the case. Helping people who have experienced some kind of unforeseen setback is fine, up to a point, but I think that ought to be voluntary too.
>That's quite literally the biggest difference between socialism and communism, the long run.
Without getting into a huge discussion on this, books have been written to try to draw a line between these two things. Ultimately they refer to the same thing, a deviation from a free market and society. To support people who have less, they must steal from those who have more. Socialism or socialist policies (such as the type we have in the United States, not the kind that most original socialists were writing about) is like a concerning lump that might turn out to be nothing more than a nuisance. Communism is Stage 4 cancer.
>A society of equals first.
This is easiest to achieve when people have a certain amount in common. But even among the most homogeneous society, differences are ever present and naturally result in different outcomes. The only sense in which we can fairly approach equality is in being equally protected by the law. If you insist on siphoning off the financial resources of those who provide valuable services to benefit others merely for existing, the worse off everyone is going to be. Many books have been written to prove that this is the case. Helping people who have experienced some kind of unforeseen setback is fine, up to a point, but I think that ought to be voluntary too.