What you're pointing out here is what the likes of the Cato Institute never seem to understand: that economics is not simply a numbers game based on reason alone.
There are people involved, making decisions that are almost never entirely rational; and quite often making their decisions based on fundamentally irrational impulses.
In terms of stratifiction helping socialism to win, you're absolutely correct. Whether it's right or wrong, it's just human nature to think ill thoughts about why that small group is extremely rich, and most everybody else is barely scraping by. A stout defense of the status quo by the very rich, simply aggravates the issue. Cato can come up with all sorts of analysis to show why that's just hunky dory, and the best possible thing. Commies, however, are tapped into that human tendency to resent those whose lives appear to be built on their labor.
What's particularly interesting here is that the idea of strict "I got mine" capitalism tends to produce and defend the stratification of wealth; whereas a paying more than is strictly necessary -- to take care of those less fortunate, I suppose -- both spreads the wealth and diffuses the dissent noted above.
Yes, but it is freemarketeers who are irrational. If you have choice between having modest food on the table, modest roof over your head, very basic medical care and education for your children or having only "free" market system with "free" press you will chose the first.
Socialism with human face is better than capitalism without human face.
The usual screams of "Socialist!" and snotty questions like, "So you want government to take care of you?" are mostly missing.
Thanks, all.
(Oh, and no one has posted personal attacks on Mr. Green, so far.)