That is communism, not socialism.
In what way might we differentiate communism from socialism?
The best I've come up with is that communism is Marx/Engel's description of a perfect socialist society, combined with a historical theory of the tension between workers/capitalists.
It's therefore a specific socialist reaction against capitalism.
Socialism is simpler, more organic. It's closer to what traditional family structures have evolved to, with a combining of assets to be shared for the benefit of that particular group (family).
I've thought about this a lot. In college I was of course a big fan of socialism because, well, that was the way to think, back then.
Later, I rejected socialism as even being possible, before I considered that no, it was possible, and it's what the Plains Indians practiced, and what many primitive societies still practice. And it may be true that all human societies at one point passed thru a socialist stage.
Further, I realized that the core indispensible attributes of socialism are surpluses and trust. If it gets bad enough, and it's strictly hand-to-mouth, this puts practical pressure on the system for simple survival everyday. Of course I'm talking about very dire times--extended famine. Something that human cooperation cannot overcome. It is strictly individual survival.
Now assuming modest, regular surplus, which is collected and distributed for the good of all, you MUST trust all participants in the system. Trust those who handle collection of the surpluses, and those who receive more from the surpluses than they have contributed. You can only do this thru personal visibility of the entire process. You have to be able to see that the collectors do not syphon off some for themselves or favored others, and that the recipients really and truly do need extra help due to any of a number of intuitively understandable reasons: old age, lack of health/intellect, etc.
In short, if it appears that they are capable of contribution, they are expected to contribute, otherwise they are of special status, which now immediately suggests that the members of the society are not equal. Once this is recognized, mistrust sets in and must be overcome by persuasion, external coercion (a group of collectors), or internal coercion (guilt).
This seldom comes to this at the family/clan/tribal levels, and can still work at a "national" level for uniformly ethnic states, where all are of the same "type" and there is no easily discernible difference in background. The less closely related the individuals are by ethnicity/race/etc., the more important it is that the surpluses be large.
But in large multi-ethnic states there's a natural mistrust of others who are perceived to be different, so there will be suspicion about how much they contribute and how much they receive as compared to other groups.
Because of the way political power is passed here in the US, by popular vote of some sort, it has been to the benefit of unscrupulous, short-sighted, or ideologically narrow political leadership to make sharp distinctions between the various groups inhabiting the US. From this follows cultivation of grievances against groups other than one's own.
So ultimately, there is insufficient mutual trust to have a voluntary socialist society in the US. Groups who consistently contribute tend to believe that groups who consistently receive more than they contribute are gaming the system, while those who receive think that those who contribute are hiding or withholding "their fair share", and have very likely cheated in some fashion to have gotten to their present financial position.
If this is accurate, any large-scale socialist programs require external coercion and/or individual guilt to keep them going.
