> Capitalism offers equality of opportunity. Everybody has the same chance at
> success. Socialism is simply equality of results. No one has the chance to
> become something better. By better do you mean richer by any chance? I ask because I don`t happen to believe that richer is better, or fairer.
You are right when you say that in the world today, any system that relies on the people involved in it acting for the "greater good" and understanding that their long term interests are served by helping each other is pretty far fetched and unlikely, however the basic point of socialism is to make people understand that the current system is not even remotely fair and that the fiscal approach to life and society is not the only way of looking at things. Terms like "poverty" and "success" only exist in a capitalist frame of reference so to say that "success" is impossible in a socialist system is missing the point completely.
I would define the success of a economic system by the number of people who were comfortably above the breadline - not by the number of people who owned more than they will ever need in several lifetimes. If you really think that this definition truly means a lack of fairness or "freedom" then I would like to know how.
tony.
None.
