Oxygen,
Your comments describe the ideal capitalist world. I have no problem with the idea of capitalism. The problem I have is with American capitalism, which is very far from the ideal.
It is quite clear that you are convinced that under a socialist system, individuals end up being entirely unmotivated. And while it is true that in a socialist system, progress (especially industrial and technological) is not as rapid, it is not absent altogether. Additionally, progress is made more carefully and is in accordance with the will of the entire population. You yourself have admitted that change in America (eg. computer tech) is very often against the will of the general populace, and must often be forced down their throats. Industrial and technological expansion in America comes at the cost of social unrest, a confused value system, and suburbian dysfunction.
I should reiterate that your faith in the American system comes not because you are right (same goes for a socialist), but because you have been raised with one key value that differs from that of a socialist.
For a capitalist, respect = money.
For a socialist, respect = acheivement.
I think that it can be conceded that money is not necessarily representative of acheivement. Very often money is allocated not according to personal value or acheivement, but rather external, uncontrollable political/social factors. Ultimately, the driving force behind the acquisition of money is not the acquisition of material goods, but rather status and respect. (though, material goods are used as a convenient way to show off money)
A socialist removes this intervening value called money and directly relates respect and status to personal acheivement. In this environment, it's obvious that there still is significant motivation to contribute and to achieve. There are no 'get-rich-schemes' or lotteries to 'cheat' your way up the ladder. You will be judged on your own abilities. In a socialist system, a man such as Bill Gates would not be suppressed, as you claim. Bill Gates would be judged on his contributions, and would be judged very favorably.
To try and convince you that people CAN contribute to the world for the sake of the contribution alone, I offer the example of Steve Jobs (Apple Computer CEO). True, the man is a billionare, but he is the most uncapitalistic billionare I know of. The return of innovation and intelligence to the computer industry over the last few years can be attributed to his role at Apple. His astounding success at that company would normally be rewarded with a great deal of money and stock options. Steve, however, has refused a salary during his stay at Apple (no doubt a stressful job) and holds no Apple stock. The man has no vested interest, yet he persists in contributing.
Again I reiterate that I fully support capitalism. The problem is that American capitalism is no longer representative of true acheivement.
[This message has been edited by DaveW (edited September 25, 1999).]