You got it wrong. The extreme stratification of wealth HELPS socialism to win. Wide distribution of wealth PREVENTS victory of socialism.
The only way to preserve private ownership TOGETHER with extreme stratification is to suppress freedoms and dissent in Latin American style.
What you're pointing out here is what the likes of the Cato Institute never seem to understand: that economics is not simply a numbers game based on reason alone.
There are people involved, making decisions that are almost never entirely rational; and quite often making their decisions based on fundamentally irrational impulses.
In terms of stratifiction helping socialism to win, you're absolutely correct. Whether it's right or wrong, it's just human nature to think ill thoughts about why that small group is extremely rich, and most everybody else is barely scraping by. A stout defense of the status quo by the very rich, simply aggravates the issue. Cato can come up with all sorts of analysis to show why that's just hunky dory, and the best possible thing. Commies, however, are tapped into that human tendency to resent those whose lives appear to be built on their labor.
What's particularly interesting here is that the idea of strict "I got mine" capitalism tends to produce and defend the stratification of wealth; whereas a paying more than is strictly necessary -- to take care of those less fortunate, I suppose -- both spreads the wealth and diffuses the dissent noted above.
You guys support some limit on wealth creation, or some level of redistribution of wealth?
I'd like for you to continue your logic a little farther, since my perception from your responses is that your thinking is itself rather socialistic.
However, I concur with your thoughts that as long as their is inequality, socialists and politicians will play on the envy of whotever occupies the bottom rung. But eliminating the bottom rung merely makes the one that was above it the bottom.
Nor, IMO, is the existence of envy, or the use of it by politicians, even remotely a justification for the elimination of the free market or for forced equality, if that's where you are heading.
Absolutely, if you have only 2 major strata, exceedingly wealthy, and exceedingly poor... you will wind up with a Boshevic outcome or some sort, whether it be all out Communist uprising, or socialism.
You must have a vibrant middle class, where the lower classes honestly can see a path to improving their lot peacefully.. otherwise, you will wind up with a nice revolution on your hands.
Argentina comes to mind.
You have that right. Socialism gains credibility when the chief beneficiaries of Capitalism misuse their wealth & power at the expense of those less fortunate.
The reason Karl Marx developed such a following in his day was not because of anything he personally did, but because corporate interests lived up to the very worst stereotypes of themselves.
My point is that, in a free market society, the creation of wealth, even tremendous wealth, generally increases the wealth and raises the standards of living of the entire society. The idea that wealth is gained at the expense of the lower classes is the fallacy.
Stratification means lack of mobility upwards or downwards, which is not usually symptomatic of free market societies in which all are allowed to participate.
"Wide 'distribution' of wealth" by central authority *is* socialism, or at least a major component of it. Once the state has the power to distribute our property, it has the means to totalitarian power.
I read your link to the little essay from Aristotle on "arete." I much enjoyed it and agee that it makes some very good points. Unfortunately, IMO, in this context it comes close to being a justification for rationalism and for the sentiment "from each according to his ability, for each according to his need." The point being that in a free society it is not up to the state but to the individual to define through the use of reason (and instinct) his own personal "arete" or virtue.
Beyond which, I believe that those who have accumulated great wealth have done this not so much because they are greedy for riches, or because they are driven to do good for mankind. They achieve it because they are pursuing their own personal dreams and visions, or even just because they are good at something and find joy in doing what they are good at. A free society does not prohibit this, nor does it define the personal dream of the individual.
Please forgive me for the delay in response, I mashed a finger under a heavy log and am not typing so well.