Delusional. Socialism absolutely does not create freedom or dignity.  Quite the opposite.  The first thing socialists do is censor and prohibit speech that sheds light on the false claims of socialism.  Socialism is one-party rule, supremacy of the state.  No one has any rights that the government has not granted and can take away.  

Examples include:
Massive increases in the printing of money causing equally massive increases in inflation for which the government overlords pay no price;

Mandates to lock down nations and force experimental gene therapy upon all citizens only to discover their solutions killed more than they saved, damaged the immune systems of hundreds of millions of people, set children's educations back by years, and established a protected class of 'experts' that pay no price for their profit-making deception;

The proxy war with Russia via Ukraine with billions of dollars unaccounted for and rampant money laundering, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the halting of elections (i.e. one-party rule dictatorship), destruction of churches, etc.;

The open border with nearly 10 million illegal immigrants shipped to strategic areas to increase the number of Democrat (i.e. socialist) electoral votes.  Happening throughout the UK and Europe as well;

See the Federal Reserve, UN, WHO, CDC, Pfizer, Biden administration, etc. all of whom are untouchable.

I repeat, your motto "Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create [insert whatever]" is so grammatically incorrect, it is rendered meaningless.  Socialism is a "challenge"?  Really...  What are "social abilities"?   

More like 'socialism is the challenge to resist its abilities to force society to [insert whatever].'

Intellectuals do not appear to be intelligent but authoritarian.  Their claim to be 'experts' to whom all must submit is nothing but fraudulent.  'Science' itself has become so corrupt that its claims are declared 'settled' with no debate.  Collectivism absolutely requires 'experts' to make the rules for society.

Fred, do you realize that you are demonstrating collectivist thinking right now?  You are not 'we.'

Fred, that is not socialism. Socialism is quite frankly one-party rule.  No dissent allowed.  Cooperation my a$$.

Hey, Fred, do the following statements accurately reflect your idea of socialism?  If not, how would you rephrase them?

1. Society's needs come before the individual's needs.

2. It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of the nation, that the position of the individual is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole.

3. The unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual.

Again, Fred, not only do you express authoritarian views, your arrogance and narcissism is on full display, maybe even with a touch of paranoia thrown in.  ;-)

If you cannot figure out what my position is, even after reading everything I have posted above quite succinctly, I don't know what else to tell you.

I am for Liberty and the Responsibility that comes with it. 

And for the record, natural law and socialism are absolute opposites on the spectrum.  Natural law is self-enforced, while socialism absolutely requires force — i.e., by any means necessary.

Thankfully for us, Fred, you have no power to impose your authoritarian dreams.  Yes, authoritarian, because you claim yourself to be the only true authority on socialism, as you define it.  Your vision, as you have described it ad infinitum, is in fact fascism, clear as day to all but yourself.  Narcissism coupled with a denial of reality leads into the abyss.  Maybe watch your step...

So here we are...

Do read the essay Willing Slaves of the Welfare State, from the link above.  It is absolutely excellent and right on target.

It's not complicated, Fred. 

When you make a concerted effort to try and understand the other's point of view, and respect people's varied ideas and ways of life, freedom and taking responsibility is really the best solution for society. 

Socialism benefits a few at the expense of many who wish to live their own lives as they see fit. 

Be a freeman, Fred, and allow others to do the same.

Fred, your collectivist group-think is showing again.  Indeed socialists have difficulty with establishing boundaries, particularly when defining what is 'mine', 'yours', and 'ours.'

The people are the people.  The government is comprised of a very small subset of the people.  A self-governing people are comprised of individuals who are self-governing and thus responsible for their own actions.

As a free individual, I cannot dictate to my neighbor, nor am I obligated to follow the dictates of my neighbor.  We each have claims to our labors and the fruits thereof, i.e. our property.

A representative government formed by mutual agreement of the people, have only the powers the individuals who chartered it have.  Therefore, if I can't do it to my neighbor, the government can't either.  The primary purpose of government is to resolve disputes in a 'civilized' manner while respecting the rights of each individual equally before 'the law.'

Again, the responsibility of the government is not to guide the people — far from it.  It is the responsibility of the people to guide the government!

To tear down such a government by revolution is indeed the means of socialism towards the end which is authoritarianism and the rejection of the inalienable rights upon which We the People founded our government.  And to that end, you can expect much resistance from the self-governing as you attempt to lay claim to what is not yours in the name of the common good.

Fred, what will be the means to the goal of "rational order" and "refined behavior"?  Hasn't every dictator ever known espoused the same ideals?  Hitler's vision hardly differs from your own.

And for someone who has called Christianity a foolish superstition, you sure seem to agree on the essential traits of 'civilized' man.  Your version of socialism seems to merely resemble a godless form of Christianity that instead worships state power.

Good lord, what a twisted expression of the American ideal. 

We the People established a republican form of government in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Yes, we support the blessing of Liberty upon all the peoples of the Earth.  The only thing 'big' about it is the number of free people in the world, not the size of their government.

If only meritocracy was honored as much as you would hope it would be.  Alas, we've come a long way, baby...

Indeed.  Unfortunately the principles of the freeman have long been forgotten in the schools.  Instead our children are taught to obey the dictates of de facto rule rather than to "know thyself."

Americans have been bequeathed the highest form of governance on Earth, but it must be embraced by each generation lest they become the tools of designing men who claim authority over them.  How wise indeed were the American founding fathers.  Would that such consciousness and understanding rested within the hearts and minds of today's Americans, young and old!

Fred, you are very close to understanding the roles and responsibilities of the freeman, i.e. the sovereign individual, the independent thinker, the empowered man.  I know it is a little overwhelming, but I hope you get there.

Your definition of socialism is an attempt to squeeze classical liberalism into a utopian authoritarianism.  You can't have it both ways.  Either you are for the empowerment of the individual and the responsibilities that come with it or you are not. 

Representing yourself adamantly and conscientiously, contributing to society of your own free will, making yourself known and understood, not manipulating or coercing others, and taking a stand are quintessential qualities of the freeman.  I support you in that.

Know that the challenge of socialism is to get others to follow those that create the rules for a socialist society.  The challenge of the Freeman is to resist being ruled by and dependent upon the dictates of others.  You are free to pursue your utopian dreams, and I am free to follow my own.  The real challenge of the socialist is to allow others to live their own lives as they see fit.

I acknowledge your compassion for others, Fred.  Perhaps you might consider that among the freemen, we, too, have compassion and value the freedom to choose what causes we wish to support and those we do not. 

One final note, you frequently end your posts with some form of "Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create [...]"  Please understand that 'socialism' does not and cannot create anything.  People do, ideologies do not.  Capitalists in fact create; they produce, invent, plant and harvest.  Socialists lay claim to what they did not create.  They lay claim to the fruits of the labors of others, to be used for their own plans for 'society.' 

At least be honest with yourself, that your ideas of what would make for a better society would be for others to give of their labors and capital to your utopian plans, for that is the real challenge, eh?  Getting Mike and I and millions of others like us to act in accordance with your ideals and plans. 

That's a real challenge, I know, because we don't agree with your ideas, and we are in fact living and acting exactly as you say we should by 'representing ourselves adamantly and conscientiously, contributing to society of our own free will, making ourselves known and understood, not manipulating or coercing others, and taking a stand.'

There may be hope for you yet, Fred. ;-)

The goal of Socialism is to enlarge individual societal/governmental control, effectively eliminating any and all resistance. Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create obedient societal participants.

There fixed for you.  ;-)

Blecch...  We the People did not establish a more perfect 'socialist' union, far from it.  Take that trash to the dump where it belongs.

I beg to differ, Fred.  Humans may be trusted to take care of themselves but cannot automatically be trusted to take care of others.  The primary reason for a republican form of government in which the powers are distributed and serve as a check upon each other is because people entrusted with power are NOT to be trusted implicitly.  They are to be kept in check because power is subject to abuse.  I may abuse myself, but I may not abuse my neighbor.  

I'm curious, Fred, in your utopian Socialist world that creates law and order, how will that order be enforced if not by police or some other armed authority?  There is not a single socialist state in the world that does not reserve arms for the state and restrict them from the populace.  Socialism cannot be established without force — period.

Another false equivalency, Fred.  The people are not the government — the government are representatives of the people and must follow the rules established by the Constitution which limit their powers explicitly. 

The government was not formed to guide us!  It was formed to protect us from being ruled, as had been the case for thousands of years.  The people individually are the best judges of guiding themselves.  

Certainly, you do not and cannot speak for the people.  This collectivist group-think is exactly the kind of rhetoric used to claim power that is not yours.  The people speak for themselves, and a representative government is to give the people a forum for the redress of grievances.  Since We the People come from many backgrounds, have varying skills, abilities and aims in life, the government cannot 'guide' us.  The laws are for the protection of lives, liberty, and property, i.e. the inalienable rights upon which the government was chartered.

The state is a poor guide for the people, as left unto itself, would make all serve the rulers to be the masters of all.  We are not to trust the government — ever.  Like a casino, office-holders are kept in check by the distribution of power because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I would agree that the state is the 'child' of the People who founded it, not the nanny-state that treats the people like perpetual children.

The best way to correct the de facto nanny-state is to bind it with the chains of the Constitution.

Please define a 'civilized state,' Fred.  Is the state supreme and the citizens its subjects?  If so, that is merely statism, and 'civilized' is merely a deceitful word for authoritarian.

Good Lord, talk about mentally ill...