Sure
This is where you are mistaken. The source of capitalist wealth was via wars
That's not true. My mother grew up on a farm that was originally part of a 3000 acre parcel that was homesteaded during the Lincoln administration by her family. It was purchased from France as part of the Louisiana purchase. That 3000 acre farm is capital, the means of production. They didn't find any wars to get that.
and conquest(land theft),
There are very few places on planet earth that you can go where you can reliably say no wars were ever fought here. To start there and say that all capital formation is a result of wars and theft is just a complete softest argument. If there is anything worth stealing it's worth stealing because it's the product of capital formation before it's stolen. Nobody is stealing big sections of the Sahara desert.
It might be worth pausing on this for a moment. The farm my mother grew up on was a case in point. It was homesteaded when slavery was legal. As such to meet the terms of the homestead it actually required them to have a certain number of slaves in order to keep all of the terms of the homestead. I shouldn't modify that a little bit if they had used hired labor they could've kept those terms without slavery. That's an important distinction. The point being once those slaves were emancipated in just a few years later that capital was given away by the family to the slaves in the largest part. By the time I can remember, back in the 1960s, of the original 3000 acres all but 350 had been given away. Every freed family was given 40 acres, and when the children grew up and married they were all given 40 acres. So what did the family and the slaves, turn freemen, do to create this capital? They added human effort, we normally call "hard work," to the equation and turned it into something.
There is no bigger tax than commandeering capital from those who have accumulated it, in the name of the people, and calling it Socialism. That's the biggest tax that you could ever have. This is why conservatives and libertarians and Republicans complain about taxes because it reminds them of the ultimate tax, which is Socialism.
I think that is defined as more than coercion but as oppression.
I think that distinction can be right in many instances. But the most prominent of those would be Socialism.
Okay. Choose the definition of driven that defines coercion
driven
[ˈdrivən]
VERB
- past participle of drive.
ADJECTIVE
- operated, moved, or controlled by a specified person or source of power.
"a chauffeur-driven limousine" ·
[more]
- (of a person) relentlessly compelled by the need to accomplish a goal; very hard-working and ambitious.
"my husband is a driven man"
- (of snow) piled into drifts or made smooth by the wind.
Here's an example "My boss is a 'slave
driver.'" The meaning of this idiom is that your boss exercises
coercive power over you. These analogies come right out of the Paulina epistles and even the gospels. You were either a slave to righteousness or your slave to sin. The mental imagery is that you were "driven" to one of these or the other. The idea is that there is something within you that
compels you in one of these two directions and you must choose who your "master" is going to be.
"Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone [as] slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?" - Romans 6:16 NASB95
It appears your reality and my perception of reality differ.
Absolutely! That is not to say that one of our perceptions is not in substantially closer to reality than the other. It is instructive however that I can make my arguments without relying on language confusion misdirections, and you don't seem to be able to avoid them. See our discussion about the word "driven" above is a perfect example.
I believe my perception(obviously) is more accurate to the TRUTH,
I'm in no position to tell you what you believe, but I'll bet you'd be very hard-pressed to make a convincing case of that tour uninterested observer.
What came first? Capitalism or Socialism?
Capitalism is just a very small sliver of a much larger idea which is "thou shalt not steal." And to your question that came first.
Thats how the capitalist STOLE not the means of production but the REAL WEALTH of countries(Their resources) which is VITAL to production.
That's your contention, but I don't see any reason to believe it, and you've given no reason to believe it.
The people can just take those resources back from the elites.
There is your coercion, "I want what you have; I'm claiming it's mine, so I'm taking it." Having the means of production doesn't make you an elitist. It's a pretty good indication that you're productive member of society however.
Like Agrarian reform, where the population took back land from the monarchs.
I have ancestors who were agitators and members of parliament respecting the execution of Charles I. As you might be able to guess they were no fan of monarchs, and with the benefit of hindsight I agree with them. There's a pretty wide gulf between capitalists and monarchs. But for the record I'm not in favor of anybody acting like monarchs. Unfortunately every time we see an example of Socialism the people in charge act like monarchs.
Do you side with the people or the elitist monarchs?
I'm against elitism and I don't like monarchs at all. Neither one of those have a thing to do with capitalism.