Is "greed" necessary for economic growth and prosperity?

I have long believed in equality and fairness - so any policies that  hint of discrimination and protection of privilege raises my hackles. What muddies the waters for me -in discussions about the subject - is that I often hear arguments spouting the benefits of capitalism - "survival of the fittest , handouts promote laziness " blah blah - from the mouths of people born into privileged classes and inherited wealth. The messengers  are polluting the message for me. 

On the other hand -as an engineer - facts do matter to me. The  collapse of the wellbeing of peoples under "socialism" in various countries like Cuba, Venezuela , the old Soviet Union is undeniable. This has got me  re-examining the underlying assumptions and drivers of economic well being. It has raised the following questions in my mind:

• Does "equality of opportunity" really drive economic growth and prosperity? If not - then are the policies proposed by the Democrats and egalitarian minded parties -fundamentally flawed?
• Is well-intentioned socialism doomed for failure? Will it also eventually doom the Scandinavian countries currently touted as the successes of "socialism"?
• Is living in an "unfair" world the faustian bargain for economic well-being? i.e. Are "greedy" people necessary for economic well being and should we let them be - for the good of us all?

"The reasonable man adjusts to his surroundings and reality- whereas the unreasonable man does not accept that reality and tries to rearrange his surrounding to suit himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man"- Bernard Shaw. 

Here is my take on this subject:

Socialism is a relatively new phenomenon. For millennia feudalism has been the norm. Kings, Barons , Landowners ruled with slaves providing the labor. How did they own the land ? the means of production? They grabbed it!  And then passed it on to their children - unless someone else grabbed it from them.  Empires were built by "greedy , power hungry men". 

Capitalism is morphed Feudalism. Ownership and control of factories and companies has replaced ownership of land. Slaves/peasants have been replaced with employees. 

You could argue that the "Feudal/Capitalism" model is an older - better tested model. It has many "proven" examples of  successes - for the conquerors at least ! The conquerors had it great until they were run over of course by someone else. The Egyptians by the Romans, The Incas and Aztecs by The Spaniards and so on. For the "slaves" life was the same - just different bosses! The model basically the same.

The landowner wanted  more - so he(mostly he's in those days) - drove the peasants to produce more. The "greedier" the landowner - the more he focused on getting more from the peasants.   An "enlightened" landowner would follow policies to have "healthy" peasants so they were capable of producing more  by not getting sick ,weak or rebellious. But the important thing is he did focus on "production" and "productivity". Healthy, anxious people are likely to work harder and longer.  

This focus on driving production is key to prosperity. Material wealth by definition is about production. (In reality it is actually about having the ability to consume more - but you can only consume more if you produce more - unless you borrow and run up debt).

Socialism shifts focus to the worker, the peasant, the slave. However - implicit in the rhetoric is that production will always be there. The talk just focuses on the benefits flowing to the worker.

This lack of focus (or blind-eye) on "production" in socialist policies and rhetoric is what is likely to doom their policies for economic growth and well being. 

The paradox is that the peasants toil and work harder than any "owner" -- but hard work is not synonymous with "production". You can work (or be forced to work - as communist societies have proven) to work on the wrong things.

 We all do want equality and fairness - life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But  "production" and "productivity" are goals that can only be ignored at our own economic peril.

In the past "production" and "productivity" have been driven by greed. Can that be changed ? Or is that just one of those unpleasant things we have to learn to accept and live with.

Any Democratic leaders listening?