One main tenet of Capitalism is in direct conflict with that statement – wealth (value) can be created. You do not 'redistribute' an initial creation of value or wealth, you only initially distribute it. Subsequent, non-value increasing transactions are indeed redistributive in nature.

Therefore, to believe that all distribution is redistribution is to believe in zero-sum – for one to get more, another must get less. I reject that entire hypothesis, as does Capitalism. Socialism does not.

Don't like Wikipedia? How about Brittanica:
social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

Typically, you try to make a straw man out of my argument, the reductio ad absurdum fallacy. You claim that because one aspect of what I say is part of something more general that I must be referring to the more general thing, then set about attacking that more general thing. Clearly, in any of the sources we've cited, you can't have socialism without collective, i.e. state, ownership of the means of production. If Hussein Obama is not advocating this, he cannot be advocating socialism. But hey, if you like knocking down the straw man, dust it off, stand it back up, strap on your helmet and pads and give it another go.

My statement is not incorrect, all systems of resources distribution are “re-distributive” by definition. When resources pass from one to another they are, in fact, redistributed. Free Marketeers like to use the word “redistribution” to indicate the evil socialist, when in fact capitalism is a redistribution system, albeit one that you favor. You want resources redistributed to those who you believe work harder or have better ideas than others. Personally, I have no problem with rewarding hard work and good ideas. I don't believe, however, that ALL the resources should be redistributed to these folks. Moreover, it is easily demonstrable that there are many people who work hard and have good ideas who do not share in the redistribution of wealth and that conversely there are many people who acquire resources through redistribution who neither work hard or have good ideas. The answer to this issue, to me and many others, is the progressive tax structure. Now, if that makes me a “socialist” by whatever twisted definition you choose to use then so be it. There is a reason straw men are so easy to knock down.

And my answer about 'zero-sum' was based on your absolutely incorrect words, not his, claiming “all systems of resource distribution are 're-distributive'.”

And if you are going to use Wikipedia as your source for a definition of Socialism that meets your preconceived (and incorrect) view of its tenets, then quote the next paragraphs, too, supporting my contention that Socialism IS 're-distributive' at its core:

“Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.”

I don't know where you got the idea that the distribution off resources is a zero-sum game in Hussein Obama's argument, but clearly your blinders will only allow you to see that so all I can say is: WTF did you get that from?

I would suggest that current tax policies and those of either of the candidates continue to support to shifting of money from the upper middle class to the lower middle class, poor and to the rich. I have no problem with the former, the latter bothers me enourmously, particularly since I am one of the upper middle class providing those funds.

There is a tipping point beyond which the rich have the resources in terms of tax advisors, loopholes, lobbiests, and vehicles that allow them to protect their assets and income from taxes. Those of us below that tipping point but who still make a lot of money are responsible for an unbalanced share of the overall tax burden (IMO).

“A classic example would be something like public education, where after Brown v. Board, a major issue ends up being redistribution — how do we get more money into the schools, and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity? Well, the court in a case called San Antonio v. Rodriguez in the early ’70s basically slaps those kinds of claims down, and says, ‘You know what, we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities. With respect to schools, that’s not a race issue, thats a wealth issue and something and we can’t get into.

Maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know, I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts,” he said. “You know the institution just isn’t structured that way. Just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order … changes that cost money to local school district[s], and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out, you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court is not very good at it, and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So i think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.”

He’s essentially saying that it was a mistake for activists to try and get judges to legislate from the bench. That the real vehicle for social change is through community organizing, and legislative initiatives.

“See, there's these folks over here, and they're, well, they're the have nots. And over here we got the haves. And what they have is better access to..uh..its that they have some rights to…er. well they just got to have it.”

Go back to your GameBoys republican trolls! Nothing to see here.

First, the contention that all systems of resource distribution are 're-distributive' is built on the (false) premise that all such transactions are part of a zero-sum game. That is exactly what Capitalism refutes.

As for definitions and tenets of Socialism, you have that skewed as well.

Socialism is “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” You will notice that distribution of capital, land, etc., is indeed part of the core definition, and a primary tenet.

Moreover, the redistribution of wealth is not a primary tenet of socialism any more than equality is a primary tenet of socialism.

Socialism IS when the state takes control and ownership of the means of production. Period.

This “Obama is a socialist” tripe simply shows how truly clueless the Right has become.

My thoughts on listening to Hussein Obama is “damned, that dude is smart”. I'm sick and tired of stupid, Joe Six-Packs running my country. I want someone who is well-read, articulate on multiple topics, and willing to learn and accept new ideas. Hearing him speak intelligently on the Warren Court is a stark contrast to Marble-mouth Bush and Bottom-of-his-class McCain.

Smart Dude for President!

I am having difficulties with the desperate “socialist” label tactic being adopted by those opposing the Obama candidacy. We understand his support for a progressive tax structure. I don't think that remotely equates socialism, but in some people's mind maybe it does.

This idea that somehow one interpretive comment from a civil rights law history discussion from seven years ago will somehow reveal some dark truth over what is already on record and in the public discourse is little bit insulting and more than a little desperate.

That leaves the single sentence about building coalitions of power which would enable redistribution of wealth, and here, since there's only one sentence, we all have to guess what he means. Many will read this sentence as saying he wants to take power through these coalitions and then take others' money and give it to the less well off. Many others will read the sentence as saying we will build up these coalitions so as to fully participate in the society (through jobs, being considered part of the mainstream, community and family support, etc.) which will result in a redistribution of wealth.

Which is it? We've only got a sentence here to guess, but the good news is that Obama's had some 14 years of legislation on the record. What sorts of things has he pushed? Obama clearly favors progressive taxation. He's also favored government programs for education and the like. The good news is that those are concrete objectives. We don't have to wonder what redistribution means, we can decide on something real. Do we agree in progressive taxation and government funding for education, health care, etc., or not? Then vote. Much easier than a divining rod.