I think these photos are from the 1900 bubonic plague outbreak in Sydney:
http://goo.gl/03g7ht
http://goo.gl/y5Z4WH
http://goo.gl/LwGzY1
There's one glaring difference between socialism and capitalism, under capitalism most of these conditions afflicting the poor were alleviated in the 20th century if not eliminated altogether whereas in the same period of time under Marxist Socialism millions of people starved to death.
As noted above, Socialism is not suited to dealing with the problems faced (or caused) by human beings.

Foxy,
There's no need for more of your strawmen in this thread, we all understand that poverty is a complex problem it's just that some of us are willing to accept that social mobility goes in both directions, that nature doesn't do equality and that the most humane thing we can do for some people is to provide stability at whatever level they find themselves.

cont'd ...

The ideology that legitimates stratification in our
society holds that everyone has the same chance to get
ahead and that inequality provides rewards for
personal effort. Many people believe that the class system
"shows what people made of their opportunities."
If those who get ahead can claim credit for their success
then those who fall behind must, logically, be blamed
for their failures. The poor are therefore supposed to
need incentives to work, rather than help at the expense
of the taxpayer.

There are few complaints, however, about how this
country pays out far more in "handouts" to the non poor
than to the poor. A large majority of nonpoor receive
benefits in one form or another. This fact generally
escapes attention because these benefits take the indirect
form of hidden subsidies or tax deductions rather than
the direct form of cash payments. We are consistently
told that welfare is a terrible burden on the taypayer,
but we're not told about the comparison to the huge tax deductions that the wealthy are freely given.

Over the generations, the human population has constructed
classes in society after society. Like other stratification
systems, social class in our country arises out of
specific historical and social conditions. Since social
stratification is socially constructed it must, in principle,
be socially modifiable as well - provided only that
people are conscious of their own ability to change what
they have created. Whether they preserve, modify,
or change the system is ultimately up to the people
themselves.

Foxy,

The class system that Marx was referring to was the hereditary kings, dukes, earls etc and the land barons that passed wealth from generation to generation. Today, there are no hereditary titles in Aus that entitle one to privilege, and the only "class" system is between the successful entrepreneur and the salaried employee.

Any person with a good idea, determination, and perseverance can leapfrog from worker to boss. I know of more than one person that started out as a tradesman, and is now the owner of a successful business.

It is these entrepreneurs that create the small business jobs that labor appears to hate so much.

Dear Shadow Minister,

To Marx a class consisted of all those people who shared a common
relationship in the means of production. Those who owned
and therefore controlled the means of production - people
such as slaveholders, feudal landowners, or the
owners of property such as factories and capital - made up
the dominant class. Those who worked for them - slaves,
peasants, or industrial labourers - were the subordinate class.

The relationship between the classes involved not only
inequality but also exploitation, because the dominant class
at that time, took unfair advantage of the subordinate
one. This in Marx's view, is the essence of exploitation,
and the main source of conflict between the classes
throughout history. Marx did not forsee many of the changes
that later occurred in industrial society, such as the
growth of a large middle class.

In industrialised societies, there are usually three main
classes, a small and wealthy upper-class, a fairly
large middle-class of professionals and other white-collar
workers, and a large working-class of less skilled
blue-collar workers.

Of course changes in people's social statuses
do occur - as they exchange places with one
another at different levels of the hierarchy. This could be
due to job losses or to changes in the structure of the
economy. For example in times of economic recession
there is a general downward trend in mobility as incomes
shrink and workers are laid off. In times of economic
growth there is an upward trend as incomes rise and new
jobs and opportunities are created.
However, despite the trends, mobility
from one stratum to another is usually the exception, rather than
the rule. Most people you will find - remain throughout their lives
in the social class of their parents.

Foxy,

As Marx married a Baroness he was no stranger to the hereditary feudal class system.

The major difference between the class systems in 1850 and today is that in 1850 was no climbing out of the class system, where as today, the only barriers are intelligence, luck and opportunity. For example Nathan Tinkler was an electrician and became a billionaire.

It obviously the genetics of smart parents, involved parenting, and good schooling does give one a head start.