There is a basic decision that has confronted humanity for ages and has never been resolved. It is simply, do we let the strong dominate the week and accumulate wealth and comfort while others struggle just to exist, or do we allow all to benefit from the goods produced.
Capitalism is largely based on the premise that human avarice will result in greater innovation and production resulting in a larger overall level of wealth and theoretically benefiting everyone. Some refer to this as the trickle down theory, where those who accumulate the wealth will spend it on goods and services provided by others. The theory makes no pretense about trying to equalize wealth and in fact openly allows for some to fall below the subsistence level. The Western version of capitalism has attempted to provide a "safety net" for those who are unable to survive on their own. Of course now some are arguing that the safety net is being abused and has led to an increase in "lazy" people who don't want to work since we "take care of them". What is the primary inequality of this system and has always been is that we may all enter this world naked and screaming but we don't enter it on an equal basis. Born into the right situation your chances of success are often not related to your relative level of effort as much as the fact that wealth opens many doors for you. Yes, some born into poverty manage to overcome their background and some born into wealth descend into abject poverty, but these examples are generally the exception, not the rule and most do not end their lives in significantly different social circumstances then they were born into.
The other concept, which has become associated with communism to many but is really more an early christian concept as well as a concept of many other religions, simply put to love thy neighbor and share the good things of this world. This concept condemns avarice and rewards compassion. However you view it, those who accumulate more are expected to help the needy.
Many in our society claim to embrace both of these concepts, ignoring the economic implications of Christianity and also ignoring the moral implications of capitalism. This is a rationalization that cannot stand up to scrutiny.
