Your post is utter bullshit.
The most successful countries have a mix of capitalism and socialism. It's a balancing act - rewarding the best and the brightest, encouraging entrepreneurs, but at the same time protecting lower income workers from exploitation and the inevitable downturns that occur in capitalistic economies.
In order for an economy to be successful, you need a thriving and upwardly mobile middle class. The US had all of this going for itself, until Reagan was elected in 1980. Reagan's changes to the tax code disrupted that balance, and the result has steadily eroded the middle class. People were encouraged to borrow rather than save, and now the middle and working class are completely tapped out. Most of the country's wealth has been transferred to the top 1% or the largest corporations. Upward mobility has been stifled, and a post-secondary education can saddle you with life-long debt. This is not a sustainable model.
Economies which are tilted more toward the socialist model don't have the extremes of wealth and poverty, either in their corporations or the citizens, that is currently seen in the US. And contrary to your assertions, a socialist economy doesn't promise or even try to achieve fiscal parity amongst its citizens, but rather a distribution of assets across the economy which reduces the levels of poverty and need among the working class, while rewarding the entrepreneurs, business owners and professional classes according to their ability and the ambition.
When lower income families has sufficient income to sustain themselves, to enjoy some savings, and some comfort, it raises the levels of security and happiness throughout the nation. When you have financial stability and security, it enables you to take some risks, and to be less fearful for your future. It gives them a stake in the success or failure of their nation.