Socialism still has a chance

I gave you the chance to defend socialism yet you couldn't. You provided something that does not even make a country supporting socialism. It is redistribution of wealth that the government controls. Socialism exists to hold the private sector accountable, You polices the police? With this pretty much any government which holds corporations accountable sponsor socialism. This is bad way to define it since pretty much every single government supports socialism. Since billsands advocated for socialism for the United States that would mean that the United States does not sponsor socialism. So basically this statement made by billsands goes against what he/she said in the first Round. Eventually we will get there This states that you know the United States does not sponsor socialism which goes against what I quoted from you earlier on in my argument. You should have stated socialist policies then you would be right but you didn't. Is that an argument to abolish law enforcement or keep it honest? Socialism, Redistribution of wealth, Started law enforcement? No they didn't. I don't think I need to prove this but I will. Just a quick Google search "in 1789 the US Marshals service was established". Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote the communist manifesto in 1848. This wasn't introduced until the last third of the 19th Century. Meaning there is almost 100 year difference between when law enforcement was implemented and when socialism was used. (History of socialism- Wikipedia) (Police- Wikipedia)In 1992 when the ussr FELL everyone thought Socialism had come and gone and been proven a terrible failure all around, And there were terrible mistakes that cost many lives, But what good idea ver works the first time? That is funny. Government murder is held unaccountable. No one if they control the money can do anything about it. How was government murder ever a good idea? It wasn't. The only way to stop this occurring is reduce the power the state has either reducing centralised power or increase the power states have. I would much rather have state power increased and Washington only be in charge of making the final decision. This would be accepting bills made by states and only having problems if goes against the constituion. There are problems with this but having it like this reduces power from a centralised government which does stop the abuse of power in a mass scale. Answer me this billsands. Would you accept socialism if one condition would be Trump is in charge? People spent centuries trying to fly and failing, Right? And then in 1969 we landed on the moon, We have jets rockets the lot. How many hands were blown off, How many heads exploded before they made the gun workThis has nothing to do with our conversation. I ALMOST drowned learning how to swim i gave up but my mom called me a sissy and said I'd never get desert again unless i learned. I did and even swam on a swim team i got awards. . Subjective and has nothing to do with socialism. It may take centuries to figure out the right way to make socialism work but i think it is inevitable, I agree with you but not anytime soon. Automation might be the breaking point or more opportunities for people to follow their dreams. I think what comes after automation would be the boiling point and will drive people to socialism. Enough to make the model in the United States. I much rather improve from our mistakes instead of making the same mistakes over and over again. That is the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing in hopes of a different outcome. billsands what would you implement that would remove the mistakes of past socialism in countries? Do you even agree that socialism has been done and failed? Why should 1% own 90% of the wealth. It is more complicated than that. No one just hordes their money in there bed or anywhere in their house. They instead invest into companies and store it in a bank. Banks invest with the money and companies will improve. The problem is that they are getting richer and can use the power to take political action. That is bad and I would like firstly to be taxed then change accordingly to how much power they have. Power would be money. Guess a progressive tax. Flat tax is not enough money removed from rich people. Ten percent of one million is one hundread thousand. Ten percent of ten thousand is one thousand. Meaning the rich person still has nine-hundread thousand whereas the other person has nine thousand. The gap is still the same but now they have less money. Progressive tax I think will sort the inequality. The only problem is that rich people tax avoid. It is has gotten that serious Cuomo does not even enforce the law instead begs rich people to not to leave because how beneficial they are to the state. We need enforcement not cowards who are paid by corporations. Socialism only gives more power to politicians. That is not a good thing since power corrupts and the more power someone has the more it will corrupt. Source: Cuomo announces income tax revenues have dropped by $2. 3b (NY Post)I think china and Nordic nations like Sweden are gradually discovering policies to incrementally put bit of socialism into market systems, It will take a long time, It won't happen over night and i think that was the problemWhy not wait until they succeed until the United States tries it? Isn't that a simple concept? Make sure it works before we implement it. People wanted to build ROME in a day, It doesn't work that way Rome took centuries to build and so will a new society whether we call it socialism or progressI agree but instead of just saying socialism works. Why not understand its faults and improve said faults? No one who supports socialism can agree that abuse of power with socialism still exists. Most recent example I found was the head of the Venezuelan government firing oil workers for protesting a higher wage. Source: It is in the comment section. Deleting gaps should work.