[SpiderMonkey]

Many people still seem to believe in a socialism based on redistributing wealth, which seems odd to me. In each case where its been applied, those in charge of the redistribution have become corrupt and destroyed the ideals of equality from within.

To me, socialism is about giving economic control to the population (rather than a tiny subset of it). Government redistribution - be it through social democracy or the nominally socialist states of the 20th century - doesn't give people economic power, it takes it away from them by making them dependent.

I was reminded of this recently by the nationalisation of UK banks - people saying things like 'we own the banks'. I don't know about anyone else, but I am yet to attend a shareholder meeting. The government owns the banks, and this does not economically empower me in any way simply because they hold a haircut competition once every 4 or 5 years.

[liberty]

Many people still seem to believe in a socialism based on redistributing wealth, which seems odd to me. In each case where its been applied, those in charge of the redistribution have become corrupt and destroyed the ideals of equality from within.

1. The Central Bank is in charge of money.
2. Who would you put in charge of redistribution?
3. How would the people have the this 'economic power' without redistribution?

To me, socialism is about giving economic control to the population (rather than a tiny subset of it).

How do the people get economic control when the central bank is an oligarchy? Unless I'm mistaken, Marx said that a central bank is required... Or do you see a flaw with Marx?

[DDave3]

There is a strong line of argument that if there is redistribution of wealth, then all you are merely doing is subjecting the persons to their dependency on the state. But through the redistribution of wealth you are giving these persons a range of freedoms that they otherwise would not have had.

economic control to the population

But what about a theory such as the Iron Law of Oligarchy?

[liberty]

Many people still seem to believe in a socialism based on redistributing wealth,

So how do you have socialism if you don't redistribute wealth?

which seems odd to me. In each case where its been applied, those in charge of the redistribution have become corrupt and destroyed the ideals of equality from within.

"Those who redistribute wealth destroy equality from within",

So how would you distribute wealth for equality?

Who would redistribute it?

It seems to me that you have presented a problem without a solution.

[Vera Politica]

All wealth is distributed, in every economy, it is just a question of how. With a market economy, the wealth is distributed privately a concentrates further and further into the hands of the few - so technically we're at the same cross roads. The point is not to have a disparaging difference between production and distribution. One is socialized the other is privatized. Production and distribution should be one and the same thing, and we must socialize it - production for need is the only way to do this.

[Anikdote]

The distribution of acquired wealth breeds rent seeking behaviors and fosters dependence on the state.

[SpiderMonkey]

1. The Central Bank is in charge of money.

Making it a centre of economic power

2. Who would you put in charge of redistribution?

The people, acting via direct democracy

3. How would the people have the this 'economic power' without redistribution?

There would be redistribution, but not through any agency - it would simply occur naturally in any environment where economic power is evenly distributed.

[liberty]

Making it a centre of economic power

Then you wouldn't have control over your money. A small group of people would. Which leads you back the those greedy people. lol wait? you mean greedy people arn't just capitalist? just kidding

If I remeber correctly?

those in charge of the redistribution have become corrupt and destroyed the ideals of equality from within.

[SpiderMonkey]

Then you wouldn't have control over your money. A small group of people would. Which leads you back the those greedy people. lol wait? you mean greedy people arn't just capitalist? just kidding

If I remeber correctly?

Who said I favoured a central bank?

[liberty]

You don't favor a central bank? My mistake, I apologize.

[The Clockwork Rat]

You have a group of people who are both elected and drawn through positive discrimination and have them redistribute the money.

[Figlio di Moros]

All wealth is distributed, in every economy, it is just a question of how. With a market economy, the wealth is distributed privately a concentrates further and further into the hands of the few - so technically we're at the same cross roads. The point is not to have a disparaging difference between production and distribution. One is socialized the other is privatized. Production and distribution should be one and the same thing, and we must socialize it - production for need is the only way to do this.

I'm sorry, but isn't this patently false? I mean, despite having a multitude more people than two hundred years ago, the wealth per person is innumerably higher, and the rate of poverty is lower; doesn't that contridict the statment?

SpiderMonkey, do you really believe the average person, the "proletariat", is intelligent enough to run the economy? I mean, assuming you're discussing an open-franchise direct democracy, you're talking about borderline retards having a say in the over-all economy. And without a system of banks, whether centralized or privatized, how exactly would you propose reinvestmentfor economic development?

[The Clockwork Rat]

you're talking about borderline retards having a say in the over-all economy

Right, but since the world is better educated nowadays than it was in the past, we as a whole would manage the economy better.

[Dr House]

I'm sorry, but isn't this patently false? I mean, despite having a multitude more people than two hundred years ago, the wealth per person is innumerably higher, and the rate of poverty is lower; doesn't that contridict the statment?

He said wealth, not income. Wealth does indeed have a tendency to concentrate at the top, because the rich save disproportionately more of their income than the poor.

[Figlio di Moros]

He said wealth, not income. Wealth does indeed have a tendency to concentrate at the top, because the rich save disproportionately more of their income than the poor.

And how do you determine the difference? Not to say they're the same thing, but most people certainly live in better conditions than ever before which would seem to indicate more wealth, no?

[Vera Politica]

And how do you determine the difference? Not to say they're the same thing, but most people certainly live in better conditions than ever before which would seem to indicate more wealth, no?

Yes. But simple because there is more wealth doesn't take away from my original proposition. Wealth can vastly increase, and the lot of the poorer can increase as well and, at the same time, wealth can still be concentrating in the hands of the few.

Example, at socio-economic state A there is 100 units of wealth. at socioeconomic state B there is 1000 units of wealth.

There are three classes: class one, two and three. At state A the wealth is concentrated as follows:

Class one: 60% = 60 units
Class Two: 30% = 90 units
Class Three: 10% = 10 units

However, at State B the concentration has shifted:

Class one: 80% = 800 units
Class Two: 15% = 150 units
Class Three: 5% = 50 units


so as per your statement:

I mean, despite having a multitude more people than two hundred years ago, the wealth per person is innumerably higher, and the rate of poverty is lower; doesn't that contridict the statment?

no. it does not contradict my statement

[redcarpet]

Redistribution of wealth, from the rich to the poor, is just a basic social democratic policy. Socialism is a basic structure of society, it has nothing to do with government policies on a day-by-day basis