Again, the answers to almost everything you asked in this I have already stated. You simply aren't reading and trying to digest what I'm saying. Instead you're reading looking for a way to say what you want to say. It gets tiring.

I already told you what model we need to follow instead of capitalism or socialism. You missed it because you aren't looking to modify or improve your position. It's tiresome.

I already told you that both pure capitalism and pure socialism have terrible results. Exterminations and enslavement occur under both. That is why glorifying one or the other is a bad idea.

Weakness is not the "fault" of capitalism. You are reading what you want to see, not what I said. This goes on and on in your long responses and I'm sure you don't realize that you're doing it but it's becoming a waste of my time to try and go through line by line pointing out every time you do it.

I agree that industrialization has bettered many aspect of society, however you attribute this to "capitalism" which I find a little silly. Capitalistic and socialistic elements have existed together throughout western society even before those terms came into being. You are choosing not to acknowledge this either because you don't know it or because it contradicts the theme of your posts.

I assume that at the base of this is that you are very angry at what you see and your anger is blinding you. It's understandable. You want something to blame for it. The enemy is not socialism per se. The enemy is the human condition that leads to corruption. Powerful people will always find a way to divide the people into groups or "teams" of capitalists/socialists or liberals/conservatives or blacks/white or football teams or coke/pepsi or whatever they can get people to cheer for. They will use whichever labels work to get them power. Right now, in Venezuela, that is socialism primarily. Right now, in the USA, it's capitalism. Doesn't matter. Everywhere it's all being used as an excuse.

The socialists put out data that props up their position. Capitalists put out different data sets which select and emphasize different things and ignore different things. If you are going to assert that graphs and charts full of data are the only way to have a conversation, I would disagree, but do you really want to say that and then use only data provided by a World Bank report? It completely undermines the credibility of your position.

The "data" provided in these charts really means very little if anything and is a perfect example of data manipulation. I'll give you an example but I could go on forever. The chart shows that the freer a society is, the more money its citizens make. Let's assume this is true. What difference does that make? The citizens of the US are freer and more prosperous, but that prosperity comes as a result of exploitation and misery, selling of weapons and exporting wars to bring misery all over the world, the utilization of slave labor in warehouses and factories all over the world, and all the other killing and misery I already detailed. So, capitalist systems may make their own citizens freer and more prosperous, but if that is true it is done at the expense of death and misery in other parts of the world, so what is the point? If you are saying that this does not happen, or that I need to prove that it happens, then I'll just leave you to do more research into it yourself. It isn't hidden information - and if you like research as much as you say you do then here is a perfect opportunity for you to do some.

But maybe you are saying that even though this does happen, it doesn't matter, because capitalist societies are much more prosperous and free, and you are fine with living in a prosperous and free society no matter what it does to get that way.

At this point I have no idea which argument you are making.

At some point you threw the label "conspiracy" in my direction, so I guess it's possible that you really don't understand that all of this is happening. If that is the case, it is a relatively easy thing to confirm with a few Google searches. There's no need for me to do that for you. You're either interested in it or you aren't. If it's something that you don't want to hear, then I could write a whole book about it and you wouldn't read it, because there are many many books already written about this that you could be reading right now.

Does capitalism result in more "progress?"

Again, this is a trick question, because "pure" unchecked capitalism results in monopolies and huge wealth disparities in which the majority of people live in misery and poverty. The social conditions which allow large numbers of citizens to be the most secure and prosperous and therefore creative and productive is a mixture of capitalism, social safety nets, and an educated citizenry that participates in the political system and regulates corporations.

It is under conditions like this when society is the most productive and technology explodes and produces the types of advances that you are talking about.

You started out with this quote: "Capitalism is characterized in short by Individual Freedom, Private Property, little Government Power and the Free Market."

This is a false statement. This is not a characterization of "capitalism." This is a characterization of conservative government and democracy.

Capitalism does not have any notion of individual freedoms, property rights, or limiting the size of government. Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. You are confusing several things here. Socialism is also an economic system, and it can be implemented by a government and a society that value and protect individual freedoms, property rights, and small government. That doesn't usually happen with a pure form of either type of economic system. The western democracies that are responsible for the industrial revolution and what followed are mixtures of the two economic systems. They were and are hybrids of capitalism and socialism and that balance is what created the conditions for the technological expansion that made the lives of people in the west better, even if it was on the backs of entire populations that the western world screwed over to make it possible.