I would say they are all are fascist or socialist systems. Capitalism requires free markets, equality under the law, and the respect of property rights. Not too many countries exhibit these characteristics in today's world. Neoliberalism is crony capitalism at best. Fascism is more akin to what we are seeing around the world. They are fake socialists everywhere who really are thieves = fasicsm. We see state guaranteed monopolies and debt used in order to loot.
You must be a Libertarian
The problem with too many people, around the world, is that they have no ability to look into the past and see reality because so many governments and pundits put so many spins on so many different past problems that we have managed to improve in many parts of the world. People have been (and still are, even [or particularly?] in the US and Europe) tyrannized by various means, often by rich and powerful people, that they see wealth as an evil and too many think it's just a matter of printing money so that everyone has some and can spend it on what they need.
Too many people don't understand that wealth is created NOT by governments, but by industrious (or even greedy) people that want something they don't have and are willing to take risks and work hard to get what they want. Yes, freedom allows money to accumulate instead of being forcefully redistributed, but you don't find many people who are just sitting on their wealth and doing nothing with it - unless their government is doing everything they can to "redistribute" that wealth and then they hide a goodly portion of it. People who accumulate lots of money in a free(er) market system spend it or invest it. Spending helps with retail, which helps with jobs (keeps people employed, helps businesses who are selling to maintain profits, etc). Investing actually creates wealth (when it's done right) and if it accumulates more money for the person who invested - EXCELLENT! As long as that person is playing by laws that have been laid down fairly and apply to all.
What so many people seem to miss is that easy/guaranteed social welfare tends to release a lot of the pressure for a lot of people to work and maintain their own personal affairs. Governments shouldn't exist to ensure that everyone lives a comfortable life. Governments should exist to ensure that everyone is equal under the law and from there should let people decide how they want to do things.
If there is a job for everyone - shouldn't everyone work? Why should I have to pay a portion of my money for people to not work? How on Earth can that possibly be fair to anyone, except those who don't want to work and don't already have the means to live without working?
There are always exceptions to everything, and there will always be people who simply can't work and can't provide for themselves. Maybe there should even be some sort of programs for people that fall through the cracks - I find it hard to be absolute in any belief that I have, but I don't like the idea. I believe that for the number of people who truly can't work, there are enough altruistic people to take care of them amongst their own family and friends, then amongst private organizations and churches and such. The problem is, a government can't make that decision (at least in these days) on individual basis because of many factors, and you end up encouraging people to apply for these "official benefits".
As I've said before, I understand the desire to have social programs that help the truly unfortunate. I just think private methods work better.
To me, the real problem all around the world is too many of the populace giving up their freedom to be taken care of by people who care for nothing more than power and money itself, certainly not the people they profess to love and protect and nurture.
