I am 80 years old I have seen many things in my life. One of the things I noticed is that many people start out with three strikes against them. Others inherit Millions and are able to manipulate the system in their favor. To me socialism is putting enough programs in place to level the playing field. In the Preamble to the Constitution it says that we want to establish justice insure domestic tranquility provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. In order to do that we need to get rid of everything that allows some people to buy influence, to rig the system in their favor at the expense of others. Personally I am not in favor of getting everything today for nothing. A college education for instance needs to be made affordable. Perhaps those who receive welfare would be required to do a little bit of community service according to their ability. We need to get a little more creative in seeing that the blessings of liberty are given to everyone. It doesn't necessarily mean a big government program. Things can be done at state or local level.

Most societies fail under a huge gap between rich and poor, and surely that is not "fair."

The problem is "redistribution of the wealth" by a government of arrogant i***ts.

The consumer knows his own needs far better than any government. It's a question of math and statistical odds:

Which would you prefer, rule by one moron making all the decisions or rule by 7 billion morons making their own decisions?

This economic game theory riddle has been solved 70 years ago by Nobel Prize winner John Forbes Nash.

Marx's Socialism was deliberately designed to fail, a bait and switch game to temp the 3rd world back into s***ery and death:

http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~parkes/cs286r/spring02/papers/nash-cornell.pdf
Non-Cooperative Games by John Forbes Nash, Jr.
the Annals of Mathematics Vol. 54 No. 2 September 1951