Older students and the liberal arts

[dcan]

Socialism doesn't refer to the distribution of power, but the distribution of wealth.

Wait, now you aren't making sense...

Your argument says wealth and power are separate, but the entire notion of Socialism is that wealth creates class separation and leads to the dominance of the wealthy bourgeoisie capitalists over the working proles. Even Wikipedia defines it thus:

Ownership of the means of production enables it to employ and exploit the work of a large mass of wage workers (the working class), who have no other means of livelihood than to sell their labour to property owners; while control over the means of coercion (e.g., guns, the law - ed.) allows intervention (e.g., imprisonment, execution -ed.) during challenges from below.

Bourgeoisie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, under Socialism, which you support, wealth IS power. Therefore the distribution of wealth is by necessity the distribution of power. To say otherwise is to say that possession of wealth carries with it no benefit of increased power, which simple observation can disprove in a few seconds.

Finally, you yourself discredit your own argument with your earlier quote that being born poor in America is bleak. If Wealth != Power, then your earlier statement is nonsensical. If your earlier statement is true, then your statement about redistribution of power != redistribution of wealth is nonsensical.

You are talking in circles and undermining your own argument. You are not being very persuasive at all.