What is Socialism?

Taxing the rich and redistributing their wealth to the poor (or to those who don't work) is not socialism, that is capitalism with welfare. The tendency to refer to welfare capitalism as "socialism" is a misnomer, and redistributing wealth via taxation is really a centrist and mainstream economic policy, far from the more radical ideas promoted by socialists.

So what is "real" socialism? Socialism is a pretty broad term which encompasses lots of different branches of though these days, but the crux of socialism is the idea that workers should control the means of production. Socialists articulate this idea with the concepts of the bourgeoisie and proletariat classes. The bourgeoisie is the class which controls the means of production and does not need to work in order to survive. The proletariat is the class which must trade their labor for wages in order to survive, and cannot gain wealth simply by profiting off the labor of others.

These concepts do not explicitly advocate for resentment toward the wealthy as you seem to perceive them: it is possible for the proletariat to become wealthy in a capitalist system, after all, though it is quite difficult. In particular, they aren't meant to engender resentment toward those who are wealthy since they worked hard: the primary concern is with those who profit off the labor of others but do not labor themselves. Socialists refer to this as exploitation of labor and it is one of the primary problems socialism seeks to address. Since ownership of the means of production--businesses, factories, whatever--is frequently passed down family lines rather than doled out on the basis of "who is the hardest worker", the bourgeoisie becomes a hereditary class of owners and capital-holders who contribute nothing yet consume most of the wealth.

Socialism can be enacted in many forms:

In most countries who call themselves socialist it is enforced by nationalizing industries so that everyone is basically an employee of the government, and the workers "own" the means of production since they theoretically have some say in the way the government works. This is a heavily criticized way of doing it, since government bureaucrats typically assume the role that the bourgeoisie once held and workers don't really have any more control over the means of production than they would under capitalism. It is therefore sometimes derisively referred to as state capitalism. Traditionally this has been enforced by violent revolutions by socialist partisans--which is one of the many issues with this form of socialism.

Market Socialism, which I view as a superior form, retains the free market aspects of capitalism while implementing worker control of the means of production. This is accomplished by abolishing wage labor, and instead ensuring that any worker who provides labor gets some portion of the profits which reflects their contribution. This could be done by paying workers in company shares, forming a co-op, etc. The simplest example for this would be any enterprise where 2 people agree to do some work together and split the profits 50-50. Assuming each contributes the same amount, it is much more fair than the capitalist alternative, which might have 1 person assume the role of "company owner" and pay the other person an arbitrary wage which may not be as great as their contribution. This sort of ownership, if anything, inspires greater levels of worker engagement and hard work, since they own a stake in what they are producing rather than just working for an arbitrary wage.

So if your fundamental concerns are that socialism basically gives people something for free and undermines the need for labor, please rest assured that getting free stuff doesn't have much to do with socialism--welfare capitalism is just a more compassionate approach to typical capitalist systems. Socialism is about control of the means of production and ending labor exploitation--welfare systems are a far cry from full socialism.

SOURCE