The societal wisdom of Socialism is undeniable.

You've already lost points here by proving your best defense is to google the definition of a word and try to point to it as if it invalidates the terminology I have set for my position. Idiots deny plenty of things on a regular basis. However, those things are still undeniable, because there is no valid argument against them. Only invalid arguments. And since whining about semantics is your very first point, you're already proving yourself inadequate. Now, let's look at your actual ideology. "To the labourer the value of the pay is greater than the value of his labour. If it was not he would not trade a greater value for a lesser one." That assumes the laborer is able to operate fairly in a market and has equal status and options to the person who owns the capital. The fact is that he does not. He makes the trade because he has no choice. There's a term for this. Wage slavery. According to your ideology, this is moral. "The economy is dominated by capitalist because they offer the best deals. It is not your place to say if a wage, or a price is unfair unless you are the one consenting or rejecting it. If a worker accepts a wage over starvation, it seems that a little money is far fairer than death." Let's look at the deal then. When I was working at Walmart, I had minimum wage and no benefits, part time, for intensive physical labor. So let's compare that to intensive physical labor for say, the US Army. I would have started at 21,000 a year. Walmart would, at best, pay me 20,000. Now that doesn't sound too different, except... The US Army also feeds me, gives me housing, clothing, and medical care. Walmart does none of that, and expects me to use my salary for it. So the government provides a more fair deal. As to my 'place,' I worked for Walmart, so I'm more qualified than you are. "There is no other options in life but to work, steal, or die. Capitalism says you can work or die, socialism says you can steal or work, anarchy says you can steal or die. Theft is immoral so I choose capitalism." Theft is immoral you say? That surely explains why Robin Hood and Zorro are heroes. Capitalism is inherently immoral. I look forward to seeing your replies claiming Jesus is wrong. "It steals the industry the capitalist built." The capitalist didn't build it. The People did. The Laborers did. Their effort and their labor built it, and the capitalist merely profits off of it without doing the difficult task himself. In this sense, he is a parasite. If he expects to own the whole industry, then he has to work every part, do every job. Examining a pair of your statements here. "So were systems of slavery and castes. The rest of that junk about Jesus and the Buddha is an appeal to authority." Objectively, slaves throughout history have largely had much better qualities of life than wage laborers under the capitalists. That's because slaves are expensive and valuable, while a laborer is considered disposable and interchangeable. As to your attack on Jesus and claim that greed is good, you're in the extreme minority there. Principles of charity and sharing are the things we teach our children. The lessons of Jesus guide millions. Others learn from Buddha to forgo the lust of goods. The fact is, one of the earliest adages of man is that greed is bad. Lust is bad. And now you're trying to find a moral reason to support it. "Under capitalism you can be as generous as you want..." Except you're penalized for it. You lose a market advantage, and from a dispassionate economic standpoint, there is no value in generosity because it hurts your profits. "They sure killed a lot of people over a concept they didn't have." Last I checked, it was the white colonists who were big on murder, while among themselves, there were relatively few conflicts with other tribes. Those were based over access, and not ownership. "In nature there are the same rights as there are in civilization. Rights are not a supernatural force which alters reality but a moral concept. If rights were inviolate we wouldn't need governments to protect them." How do you possibly think that? Rights are a construct of society. Without society, they do not exist. Ergo, there are no natural rights. The idea there are is a pathetic and infantile attempt by idealists to justify the idea that everyone is good. The reality is the opposite, which is why capitalism is destructive. "You can build a government to be your mother, I want a security agency first and foremost to secure me against people like you." And already you're afraid. You know that the number of people exploited is large, and that they can rise up and swallow their oppressors. Yes, it's happened before. And it can happen again. And that scares you, you don't want to give up your dangerous ideology. Equality scares you. The idea of being the same is just so terrible. I like that you're afraid. You should be. "Actually it is because to hold any values you must value liberty if only your own. If you did not value your own liberty you must be rejecting your own judgements and values, a contradiction. The only reason people think they don't value liberty is because they don't value the liberty of others. The premise of capitalism is consent, meaning you everyone's liberty is equally valued and not subject to sacrifice. That is the only equality it is based on and the only equality rationally justified by the operation of the human mind." I wonder where you dragged such an absurd idea from. Considering the billions upon billions of humans in history who have valued the monarchy, or the theocracy, or the dictator, or any concentration of power over 'liberty,' that's a large number of values you don't like recognizing. You see, you have a choice. You can promote 'liberty,' or you can promote public interest. Choosing liberty is placing yourself over others. Choosing public interest is putting others over yourself. However, in your world, selflessness is bad. " To value capitalism is to value freedom. To value socialism is to value economic equality at the cost of rightousness, to pretend the needy have a right to privlidge and the rights of the wealthy are privlidges." Now, I'm rather amused here. According to you, the Son of God is a bunch of junk, but hoarding wealth is 'righteous.' How we reconcile this with common sense is unclear to me. But what may be more amusing is claiming socialism takes away the 'rights' of the wealthy to give the needy 'privilege.' The last time I checked, the goal of state ownership of capital isn't to give starving workers in hovels satellite tv, gold toilets, and fine china. The goal is to give them food, healthcare, a place to live, heat in the winter and cooling in the summer, an education for their children, and the freedom from want required for such things. If the price of that is some oil tycoon being unable to buy another solid gold sofa, then too bad. The needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few. Unless you want to argue that the capitalist really needs opulent mansions and is incapable of living in a normal house. "... source of all human suffering..." That's pretty amusing. Actually, very amusing. Go out and read the Jungle. Or try living in Bangladesh and working in the sweatshop. No misery there due to capitalism. "It's not cooperation if you have to threaten." You mean like being threatened to be fired? Being fired for Unionizing? Being threatened with pay cuts? Being threatened with losing breaks? And when we campaign for a change for fairness' sake, being threatened with prison or death? Power is derived from wealth, and the capitalists are the source of power. You let them hold us at gunpoint. Also, I'm curious how old you are and what your life experience is. Right now I'm guessing teenager or senile old man.