Actually I'm using the commonly accepted definition of capitalism and socialism.
From dictionary.com
"Capitalism,
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."
n: an economic system based on private ownership of capital"
"Socialism,
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
n. A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital"
In other words, socialism requires redistribution and collective/government ownership of capital and the means of production.
Redistribution alone would be better described as egalitarian than socialist, as it does not imply collective ownership of industry. Jesus and Ghandi were certainly egalitarian and supported giving to the poor, although less so than people like Andrew Carnegie or Bill Gates who donated far more to charity and created a lot more jobs. Carnegie and Gates also did not spawn an ideology that resulted in millions of deaths, as Jesus and Ghandi both did.
Since I prefer society to be prosperous, with good living standards for as many as possible, as opposed to widespread poverty, disease, and starvation, I prefer a system which rewards the likes of Gates & Carnegie rather than Jesus and Ghandhi. Becoming rich is far better for society than glorifying poverty and lack of progress.
"I would argue that if Jesus were here today, he would favor the state distributing more wealth and services to the poor, as the pure capitalists wouldn't have an interest in doing so on their own or through charitable means. As you might recall, Jesus wasn't big on people's accumulation of excess wealth."
Yes, but Jesus was an economic illiterate, like most people, so he would do so without understanding that this would in fact penalise the poor along with everyone else. His policies would require an increase in taxation, thus reducing the productivity of business, resulting in slower economic growth and thus keeping the poor oppressed for longer.
You appear not to know simple economic laws. For example, the marginal productivity of labour is positively correlated with the total stock of invested capital. Therefore, the more capital accumulated by greedy capitalists, the higher real wages will be. Thus greed directly benefits the poor by raising the real wages. In contrast, redistributive taxes reduce the stock of invested capital and therefore result in lower real wages. Why would a compassionate person wish to pursue a policy that results in lower living standards?
If your theories, and those of Jesus and Ghandhi were right, why is India wracked with poverty and death, whilst America is full of prosperity and longeivity? Why do Indians who migrate to America do so much better here than in their own country, or anywhere else in the world?
:eek: