"I'll just say the same thing that Rushy said back at him, that will surely show him that I don't know what I'm talking about again."
Can you stop being intentionally obtuse for 5 seconds? In normal human conversation if something is unclear, you ask for clarification. I realize you aren't actually interested in discussion and just want to find something and say "haha you're wrong."
Here, I'll make this easier:
Here is you saying socialism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. Then you decide to agree with me and say it does. Which is it?
And this is how I know you either don't actually read the posts in the thread or you are being intellectually dishonest on purpose. I should have been more clear in that post, but is obvious that I meant exclusive to socialism, especially since I qualified it at the end comparing higher wealth redistribution in capitalism. The only reason I said it was because most of the people in this thread are under the impression that socialism is about taking all your stuff and giving it to others, which is completely incorrect. There is literally a comparison in there that you decided to ignore like you just stopped reading the thread once you saw what you wanted to reply to. Had you actually kept reading the thread, you would have seen Rama ask for clarification like a reasonable person would do. To which I replied:
Functionally, yes, but not by the "numbers," so yes I am drawing a distinction. You aren't redistributing wealth since it doesn't (see: shouldn't) be controlled by one person (or a group of wealthy people). Obviously a socialist overthrow of capitalism would naturally result in a massive redistribution of wealth initially. It becomes a much more in-depth discussion as we will move into private property vs. personal property which I don't think is appropriate for Thonk's teen angst thread. In modern society, redistribution of wealth is significantly larger in capitalist economies which is really the main point.
I literally tell you what my main point is which you completely ignore and now pretend like you couldn't possibly understand what was being discussed. Instead you say that:
Economic systems, at their core, are arguments on how wealth should be distributed, not whether or not it is.
Literally no one is saying wealth isn't distributed. I should have just applied your level of pedantry and focused on you saying the word distributed instead of redistributed, then pretend like since they are different words I couldn't possibly understand what you mean so I just point out you are wrong and ignore context and not bother asking for clarification. Something like:
Economic systems are various forms of wealth redistribution. Saying socialism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution is like saying lakes have nothing to do with water.
Which is it? Can you not contradict yourself? Is it distribution or redistribution? They are different words, you know? You literally just said before that economic systems are about distribution of wealth. Now you are saying redistribution, maybe you should try being consistent.
Anyway, context matters. Try reading the thread next time.