>>What you call "responsible capitalism" is what we call realistic socialism.<<
I'm pretty sure my "responsible capitalism" which takes freedom and then adds those government controls which protect the rights of contract holders, property holders, etc. is a bit more on the realistic or responsible capitalism side than responsible or realistic socialism side.
Many in Amerika have taken a great liking to Marx. I just don't like him because I've read a number of his works and I think he's an idiot. 
I find many of his claims unsubstanciated and so what he builds upon them makes me shake my head that this poor bloke needed to get a real job producing some sort of wealth before he proclaimed himself wise and wrote about that which he did not understand. So while not everyone has a problem with Marx, as a PR move a real discussion of the US's move toward socialism isn't found ANYwhere among ANY of its most avid supporters. Which is why I proclaim the whole thing bullshit garbage and immoral--The discussion is fine (and good). Supporting socialism is fine (if not good ). But underhanded tactics which include openly lying about one's intentions I'm not a big supporter of.
>>If there's a mass of unemployed people who don't get anything from the state by redistribution, they can only live off charity.<<
Living off the state by redistribution IS charity.
>>Thus, they're unable to contribute in the economic system.<<
People living off charity do not contribute to the system anyway--they merely spend the earnings of those who donated, earnings which would have been spent by their earners anyway. We have redistribution in the form of unemployment and welfare. It's good for our economy because people who can't bathe and wash their clothes or feed themselves and their families tend not to find new work and resume contributing to the system.
But when "redistribution" ceases to be this pragmatic and utility matter I just described, it becomes entitlement of low-income earners wanting more because they decided they deserve it and there's enough of them to vote that government force be used to cease it and give it to them. And this becomes problematic, to use the euphemism of the century, because it brings in government bureaucrats to decide how much to shave off of who and how much to give to who for wealth each creates. It short-circuits all of the natural motivations a free market naturally creates for people to work harder and produce more in order to better themselves (better yourself by bettering humanity... what a radical idea this capitalism thing fosters!). Because in a free market, you get rewarded by producing what people want and need. And the more of what people want and need you produce and the better it is, the more people are willing to pay for it--the more you produce and the better it is, the more you are rewarded for making it! But even such a simple motivation which has rocketed the USA to economic superpower unparalleled in human history is ignored in the redistribution being discussed here. Discussed here is a fine idea that short-circuits this most basic motivation capitalism provides for everyone to work harder and better for others in order to be rewarded. Redistribution here encourages laziness by paying it (don't bother working, they'll pay you not to and it's a lot less work!). Redistribution here assaults motivation to excell and be better than your competition because hey, you're not going to be rewarded for working harder, you'd have to be stupid to bust your ass when your reward is the same as the idiots you work with who slack and do a fifth of the work you do on their good days.
Redistribution does not "allow" anyone to "contribute" to the economic system. Creation of wealth contributes to and expands the economic system. Encouraging hard work and innovation (and that means rewarding it) expands the economy. Taking from the successful and giving to the have-nots does not.
As much talk as there is about the gap between the rich and the poor, it is and has always been and will always be nearly unimaginably large. Maybe you have a much greater mind than me, but comparing myself to someone with 10 billion dollars and comparing myself to someone with 50 billion dollars reveals pretty quickly that they're both just so unimaginably huge I don't really think I'd be able to discern a difference in the gap. Regardless of this gap, it's not because of redistribution that we're not still experiencing the crash of the 30s. People enjoy, on average, better pay and a better standard of living today WITHOUT redistribution.
The only things redistribution contributes is bureaucratic costs, injustice, and stiffled motivation.
[I wish I could obey forum rules]
