again, they are against a variety of things

yes, social order

They protect a status qou which allow them to beheave as beasts

what beasts

They conform and defend chaotic society

liberalism is not entirely chaotic

and they are compatible with liberalism

they are liberal

socialist want to be beasts at everyones expense

but liberalism ultimately leaves a path to tear down all non-voluntary social structures

and that's why liberalism works so well with capitalism

capitalism, at least ostensibly, is all about voluntary transactions

so while the "leftists" tear down vestiges of the previous social orders, capitalism fills the void

or the void is just left a void

Socialism is chaos

socialism is not well defined enough to make that statement

Socialists in soviet didnt think it sås socialist

Socialism is will defined

i think we can distinguish between equalist socialism and non-equalist socialism

There are many definitions before and efter marx

at least those two

and then further subdivisions may be possible

equalist socialism is the chaotic one

All the versions that works,stops being socialist

Socdem,Only works because its capitalist

define socialism

Soviet union threw planned Economy away as soon as Stalin died,and Stalin used some capitalist details

Wrong

collectivist egalitarianism based om economical materialism

What a sophisticated name for looters

I am biiig gay

Taxes

socialism does not require egalitarianism

Its an outdated understanding of 17th century science mixed with an desire that all men should be the same and have access to plenty

its the goal

i don't think that "national socialism" is a contradiction

Egalitarianism is the core defining trait

they obviously were not egalitarian

maybe for communism

that just wants to make the citizens in the nation equal even at the cost of everyone else