i cite someone on quora.
“Socialism” and “redistribution of wealth” have nothing to do with each other; in fact the latter as a policy regime precludes socialism and only exists in capitalist and pre-capitalist economies.
Socialism is defined as social ownership of the means of production, implying that everyone is a recipient and beneficiary of the net social product and any productivity gains generated by the means of producing wealth. Under such a social arrangement the initial distribution of income would be more equal ex ante as there would be no classes based on the division of property ownership, and thus no need for redistributing income ex post.
Redistribution of wealth - by that I assume you mean progressive taxation and tax-funded public assistance - exists in capitalist systems to ameliorate poverty and as a remedy for employers failing to provide living wages to lower-working class workers. The goal of these measures is to enable more people to engage in the capitalist system as consumers, to prevent revolt and give workers a sense of security (to safeguard the capitalist system from radical criticism and discontent), as well as out of a general ethical concern for helping the less fortunate. None of these reasons have anything to do with replacing the capitalist system or private property with a socialist system and collective property in the means of production. Indeed, all these reasons for income redistribution and progressive taxation would be entirely redundant in a socialist system.
