The theory of socialism does have some intellectual appeal, just not as a universal concept. It is quite easy to imagine a setting in which socialist principles might work better in practice than a capitalist approach, specifically one in which a society has only a few discrete types up resources with which to produce wealth. Socialism might be just the ticket for an oil rich state with nothing else but sand with which to provide necessities for its people. In general, if the sparse resources are fully exploited with only a fraction of the workforce, then "spreading the wealth" makes sense.
On the other hand, in a country such as the United States, or South Africa or Russia, with a vast array of resources with which to drive an economy, the efficiencies afforded by capitalism are much more likely to produce higher standards of living, and allow people to pursue those activities most meaningful to themselves. Free markets presuppose a degree of liberty that the socialist simply cannot afford.