The idea of communism/socialism assumes that if society produces enough food/clothing/etc. for everyone, then why not just redistribute it fairly between everyone instead of relying on money. Socialism assumes that resources can be redistributed by government policy alongside otherwise capitalist system, while communism prefers to get rid of personally-owned-capital completely.

It has it’s fair share of problems like usually not taking transportation into account or assuming that if one person needs half a pound of meat a day then another needs the same. It generally requires politicians to run the country like playing a game, game where goal is to make sure everyone has at least basic needs covered. Usually this backfires for the same reason capitalism turns into shithole - people are greedy and incompetent.

The specious notion that money is in any way an intrinsically finite resource is the most damaging social construct of the modern world.

Religion is the opiate of the masses, economics is its fentanyl.

I always felt like that argument doesn’t survive critical thought. I think it comes down to the velocity of money. Poor people spend their social welfare dollars nearly immediately on things they need to survive, like food, housing, or medicine, returning it to the economy instantly, to be spent again. Meanwhile billionaires hoard their earnings and it does nobody any more good ever. It certainly doesn’t ‘trickle down’.

This is just a lie. Capitalism will eventually run out of peoples money to steal but in a socialist society where everyone pays their fair share of taxes the money will keep coming in. Every month you get your salary, pay your taxes. Which means that every month more money flows in to the government.

Not paying enough taxes and making the rich people pay even less is not a sustainable economic system and does not add new money to the government.