Socialism has a requirement of self destruction.
Can you give without receiving? Technically speaking, yes. You can give time, talents, an ear, a shoulder, a word of encouragement, a reprimand, etc. Now, can you give monetary help without receiving money in some form or another? Well, if you have no money, you can't give monetary aid and succor.
There are countless welfare programs, TARPS, bailouts, tax "credits", and whatever the next generation of social programs bring. Where does the government get the funds for these? It has two options: 1) Tax people who make money or 2) Print it. Both have dire consequences. If the government continues to add social programs (and spend money on ridiculous things such as 'federal bathroom equality') they'll either have to tax the rich folks more or print more money. Taxing the "wealthy" (which I'm not) will only work until they're not wealthy anymore. If they tax to that extreme there will be no drive in the population to "get rich". No drive to get rich means no rich people and the 'need' for more "handouts". Option two would drive the inflation through the roof (more through the roof). This is wrong and bad. The best hope we have is to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps, work our asses off and, in the future, elect people with common sense. The point of this was to show in a few short lines that socialism cannot survive, it has the requirement, self fulfilling, of self-destruction.