Socialism may be unfair in a lot of way but it is fairly good for economics. Everyone basically gets the same thing. No one is rich and no one is poor. Everyone gets to go to school and have a job. This is good for the economy and keeps it stable.
Conservatives will defend their wealth AND power to control others until they die. So when communism was gone they blame progressives who were on the same sides to fight far right and far left. When we are gone who are you going to blame? One of you? Also your god jesus told you to share your wealth to poor and unfortunate ones and help eeach other. Please do not even try to say "i dont donate my money to the govt but donate my money myself" it is a same thing and who know you really donate? In fact your god war ed about the greed and hoarding of wealth and power. Funny thing is you are doing exactly opposite of your god yet you still believe jesus you grant you with ticket to the heaven with all the sins? Like declaring wars just for the profits in exchange of deaths?
Socialism does make economic sense. When the government has some control over what goes on in the economy, the economy because a lot more stable, and a stable economy brings good long term results for every one in the country. Socialism allows the government to make the best decisions for its citizens.
Socialism and equality of outcome is synonymous with anti-freedom. Saying Capitalism is unfair is like saying basketball is unfair; some people have more ability than others. If someone wants to be rich, Let him try to be rich. If someone wants to be live in a tree and eat some apples, Let him. Forcing everyone to be the same takes away people's basic rights: life, Liberty, And the pursuit of happiness. Socialism is essentially theft. Liberty is taken away, As well as anything that people produce. If everyone is forced to work for 12 hours a day for meager pay, What is the incentive to work hard? There is no economic progress or innovation. Only under Capitalism, Where hard work leads to success and laziness leads to failure will there be innovation and incentive. There is very high wage mobility in the US, So the notion that people born in poor families are doomed to a life of poverty is incorrect. Most of the poverty in the US is a result of poor choices and government intervention: single motherhood, Poor education, Etc. For the people who are unable to get jobs and work is where private charity comes in.
The best example, I think of why socialism eventually fails in most situations (sometimes with the right conditions it can succeed, although in my opinion not to the same extent as capitalism) was demonstrated by a college professor. One day, his class was complaining that it was unfair that some students got A's while others struggled to pass. So, the professor gave in and told them that on the next test, he would use a point distribution system to grade the tests, so that essentially the students with higher grades would give points to the students with the lower grades. After the first test, everyone was pretty happy. The A students only went down to a B, and the D students got a raise up to a C. However, as time went on, the A students began to realize that they didn't need to study because the amount of work they put in had no direct effect on their individual grade. See where this is going? When there is no competition, no incentive to work harder, smarter, and better than the person next to you, then the majority of people won't. That is why socialism is not as good an economic system as capitalism.
Socialism is about redistributing the wealth. Once any government has the authority to redistribute the wealth, invariably, the wealth is redistributed into the hands of the wealthy and well connected.
Take obambacare. (Please.) The Socialists say that if everyone buys health insurance, the costs will go down. But the Capitalist insurance companies are using the 'You Must Buy' to mean 'You Will Pay' - MORE!. The rates are skyrocketing, and the healthy young are not buying.
In another debate somebody said that under socialism the workers get control over the means of production and so they will work harder and better. If one is talking about 'socializing' one factory and the workers install a healthy profit sharing plan and if they can keep their union from siphoning off their profits it might work. But at the National level socialism invariably concentrates control of resources and production into the hands of the elite few.
Chavez took Venezuala down the path of socialism. Even with oil wealth Venezuala has become an economic basket case.
Here is the reason socialism invariably fails at the national level. As soon as the government has sufficient power to redistribute the wealth, the wealthy and well connected twist the levers of that power to redistribute the wealth into their own pockets.