Does Socialism Foster Economic Equality?
Socialism seeks to right the wrongs of society by creating government-imposition of equality, therby ushering in 'justice.'  William Morris, 19th century British artist and writer explained his definition of socialism for the 1894 edition of Justice, the socialist magazine in the following statement:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Well, what I mean by Socialism is a condition of society in which there should be neither rich nor poor, neither master nor master's man, neither idle nor overworked, neither brain-sick brain workers, nor heart-sick hand workers, in a word, in which all men would be living in equality of condition, and would manage their affairs unwastefully, and with the full consciousness that harm to one would be harm to all-the realization at last of the meaning of the word COMMONWEALTH.[1]
The society in which Morris envisioned appears to be a place where the chronic problem of inequality is solved.  By ridding itself of the extremes of rich and poor, master and servant, idle and overworked, brain-worker and hand worker, this society would achieve balance, equality, and fairness.  It would form a community in which people would use their labors in an unwasteful way, ultimately developing a "community consciousness" whereby each individual realizes his own unique contribution to the whole and his good would better society and his ill would hurt society. 
This ideal community sounds like a well-oiled, intricately working clock where all people are highly motivated cogs.  Yet, how can this society be achieved?  And furthermore, can it be successful?
These legitimate questions tend to have been overlooked by socialist idealist then as well as now, but are phenomenally important to our understanding of if and how such a society can be achieved.  To eliminate the extremes of rich and poor, one would have to eliminate money and thus there would be a class-less society, right?  In theory, yes, but in practice, no.  Instead of everyone possessing  "equality of condition" as Morris envisioned it, what inevitably happens is what the Soviets referred to as the Nomenklatura system.  In this system, the state rewarded leaders and party loyalists with special privileges.  For example, party leaders had access to special grocery stores, better schools, and finer cars.  Were they paid more than the other workers?  Well, in money, no, but in privileges, yes.  Thus, we can conclude that the chasm between rich and poor really does not revolve around money, but access.  The rich have access to things that the poor don't: access to cars, schools, vacation spots, etc.  Yet this problem, the problem of unequal access was not solved by Socialism, because Socialistic societies create elite and exclusive societal stratas due to the rewards of "access and privileges." 
Capitalism within a free society allows more opportunity to people than the socialist system.
    

[1] Morris, William.  "How I Became a Socialist."  The Norton Anthology of English Literature.  7th ed. Vol. 2.  M.H. Abrams, Gen. Ed.  New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2000.  1618.