This has turned into a really silly argument over a false paradigm. Both socialism and capitalism are failed systems and they are NOT the only two choices.
How can you determine whether somehting has failed without defining what it was meant to do in the first place? The assumption seems to be that capitalism and socialism are suppossed to be different means to the same end. That simply is not the case. One is meant to gaurantee security. The other is meant to provide opportunity.
Capitalism can never exist because the moment it did capitalists would immediately seek to destroy it. Capitalism relies on free markets, a kind of level playing field, no monopolies, a kind of morality, all of which are directly at odds with excessive greed.
False assumptions again. Greed can be kept in checked by the consumer. Capitalism works when everyone takes personal responsibility. Liberals don't grasp the concept of personal responsibility thus why they think capitalism fails.
The very incentive that causes capitalism to work turns around and destroys it right away. You end up with subsidized industry, rewards for excessive risk, monopolies, deferment of costs to others, abuse of power, corruption, etc.
And what is it you think the incentive of capitalism is?
Imagine a world full of self employed laborers who owned their own means of production or at least had the opportunity to do so, imagine if incentives were skewed to reward cooperative self employment coaltions, imagine if you couldn't charter a corporation unless it was owned by it's members.....
These are called co-ops. And there is nothing in a capitlist society that prevents them from forming. There is no legal barrier to a group of people getting together and making an agreement to collevtively own and operate a business. So you have to ask yourself, if it's such a great idea, why aren't their more of them.