I already said what I had to say. The economic system in Russia mirrors the ideals of Capitalism much more then the high corporate tax and left wing agenda of USA, Canada, and EU.

My point was technology was the main reason for the improvements in life quality in USA, not the economic structure, and that's largely true. While more people are unemployed now then before, the average lifestyle is better. People don't really starve to death anymore unless they have a serious mental illness and live on the street.

So economic equality and democracy do go hand and hand.

You mean the economic system in which the means of production is mostly owned by the state versus the economic systems found in Canada, U.S, and the EU in which there is a higher degree of private ownership, in most of these countries surpassing that of the state?  My argument was that without free-markets and the concept of private property we wouldn't have the technologies that have benefitted the lives of the poor. 

You originally claimed it was because of capitalism that technology has boomed. You specifically stated that the accumulation of wealth was a good thing, and you attributed this accumulation of wealth via a Capitalistic economic system as the reason why people are more affluent now then they were in the past.

Yes

However now that I read your post, I think we're arguing about nothing. Even in a socialistic society, people of higher worth (say a manager) get "paid" more. There is no currency, but people of higher demand/need would be more rewarded in a socialistic society as well as a capitalistic one. This however is what I consider to be economic equality, if you work harder, you deserve more.

In some forms of socialism what you say is true, there is inequality, albeit highly regulated. In other forms of socialism, particularly those with the end goal of communism (there has never been a communist country, it's an ideal) there is a mentality of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Meaning that you get what you are deemed by the collective to need, and that's it. The forms of socialism that tend to have hierarchies are those which are mixed with capitalism, having markets, and private ownership. "Economic equality" tends to be quite self-definining for most. 

The big difference is that in a socialistic society, you can't pass on your "value" to your next of kin, when you die it does with you. Capitalism lets you accumulate wealth over centuries, and this is why you see families who were rich hundreds of years ago, are now super mega duper rich, far wealthier then most people can become in a lifetime. This is why complaint about capitalism because most of the wealthy are literally born into wealth, and don't deserve the wealth anymore then anyone else.

There are more differences than a high inheritance tax. Nevertheless, why is it amoral for a man or woman to choose his or her family first and foremost? They worked for that money, they should give it to whomever and use it however they wish. If they want their great-great-great-grand children to have unlimited funds to pursue whichever interests they wish to, who are we to say that it's alright to steal more from them? One can argue that money buys power, but quite honestly that's a flaw of the system that is corruptible, not the economic freedoms we all enjoy. 

I was confused at your arguement because socialism is a free-market economic system, so I did't catch your arguement. As for your arguement about private property, I don't have a response. I don't know how a society without private property would work, but I do have a funny little comparision in my head while makes me feel that without private property, we might be less technologically developed, but we might be happier. If you want to hear it PM me, it's about the difference between sex habits of Bonobo's (Group Sex, shared parenting) vs. Chimpanzee's (and Humans, individual sex, private parenting).

The only forms of socialism that profess free-markets are those combined with anarchism. ALL forms of state socialism do not have free-markets. If there exist markets at all, they're heavily regulated. So I don't know where you got the idea that socialism => free-markets. 

If you look up the definitions of capitalism and socialism, you find that capitalism has synonyms of free-enterprise, free-market, and is defined as the private ownership of the means of production. If you look at socialism, you have "social-ownership", industries owned publicly by government, abolishing of the private means of production, etc, etc. Which one is defined by a free-market and which one isn't? 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

I don't relate communism and socialism. Communists claim they are socialist when they are corrupt. True socialism has people of different worth earn different, I guess "rewards levels"?

Marx stated that communism can only be reached through the transition of capitalism to socialism and then to communism. Most socialists today are marxists. Therefore a relation exists, whether you like it or not. 

As for economic equality, if there are two people with one working significantly more then the other, how is it equal that they get paid the same? What you're referring to as economic equality is communism, not socialism.

It's still economic equality. In fact, it's the ONLY definition of economic equality. It's not fair, but its still equal. EQUAL means they have the same economic power. 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

"a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional betweencapitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism

a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

For passing on money to children, that's the issue most people who have money didn't work for it. One guy hundreds of years ago settles in USA/Canada earlier then most, and hoarded as much land and cheap labour as he could, and gave that money to his distant grandchildren over time. Who's to say we can't give excess money to our distant relatives? Well I'm saying it now, hoarding money is bad for the economy, and I wish we taxed Inheritance extensively. If you worked hard and made a lot of money, yes you should be allowed to give a lot of it to your children, but there should be laws on money (aka power) abuse.

Now you're changing your opinion on this. Before you said, "The big difference is that in a socialistic society, you can't pass on your "value" to your next of kin, when you die it does with you" So now it is alright, as long as somebody worked for it? Alright, how do we determine whether or not they worked for it? Who determines that? The collective or the individual? If the first, then it is indeed contradictory to economic freedom. Just as a collective deciding whether gays should have rights or not is contradictory to social freedom. 

As for Free-Market Trade, there are many forms of socialism which allow a free-market trade. Having a socialist economy does not mean a ban on free market trade. Any Self-Managed Socialist Economy such as market, cooperative or socialist market socialism openly welcomes free-market trade.

Socialism means that the means of production is owned collectively. That means the individual is outright denied the right to own the means of production, privately. THAT IS NOT A FREE MARKET. Regulations on human economic activity is NOT A FREE MARKET. 

Again, even in your definition of socialism, nowhere does it say it's not a free-market economy.

It's not my definition, it's the Miriam-Webster's, Stanford's, and Oxford's dictionaries definitions. We don't pick and choose what these words mean, they have a meaning independent of our beliefs. State socialism is contradictory to a free-market. Provide an example of a free-market economy that can also be called socialist. 

----

That said, I still think Capitalism is the best system, but it's far from perfect. I'm very left wing, I think everything should be taxed, and taxes should grow exponentially with income (so at a certain point, very little extra income you earn can be kept).

How is that morally justifiable? Like you said, it is "earned."