Socialism uses the violence of the state to force the people to comply.
Communism offers a better deal to be voluntarily accepted, or rejected.
They would both be called one or the other, if they didnt have this difference.
If you would like to read more, in spanish, here is the link.
http://es.theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index
If you want to know about nonviolent tactics to use to defeat the violent, also in spanish, this is the link.
https://www.aeinstein.org/free-resources/free-publications/espanol/
Until the people of venezuela learn to cooperate outside crapitalism, this is what they get.
you have all the reason here they have used violence until they can not, thanks for sharing that material
So, I can decide if I want to decide what to do with what I create or not? I decide to decide. Your idea is over. Thanks. Do you have any other means of convincing me to communism? Or totalitarian state/socialism is the only way to make sure someone does not have more than I do? Let's just make people not create anything because it will be taken away from them... so why bother. Let others do stuff for you... this is insane!
Never proposed that.
That is your emotions getting the best of you.
I do not think it helps your argument when you have none, but instead talk about what you think my emotions are. I think you should focus on fixing yourself first before you assume you know anything about me.
How will you make me a communist without force? I do not agree already? Go! :D
By offering you a better deal.
If you can pull your head out of your mind controlled matrix long enough to recognize a better deal when you see it.
wait... what? you really have a lot of issues with being coherent and rational. Could you use honest language and write exactly what you want to say by what you type? I am not buying your snake oil.
So you want to do all the thinking for all of these people who are inferior to you Joseph?
They just can't ever be as smart as you, so you will fix them? :D
Tell me at what point you get confused:
I am doing something. Then I have an option to keep doing it or choose something I'd rather do. I have a clear agreement that as 2+2=4 has to be beneficial for both parties. Otherwise I am a total retard to choose something that is worse. I take it that you would?
So I catch fish. Some dude invested all his life's wealth to create something that was not, that gave me a second option. I did not create it. Someone else did. They need help. Offer me something. I decide if it is more beneficial for me than what I did before. I can try to negotiate based on how useful I am to the guy. He cannot go above some level, because the whole project and many people would suffer.
At what point did I loose you now? 2+2?