Capitalism is not about a chaotic system, such as in Somalia,
and I see you had to use a non-example to support an agenda.
Capitalism is about allowing those with the know-how and the capital, to produce an economy which can support a community or a country.
Somalia lacks the know-how and the capital and the infrastructure to create a healthy economy. So, again, that's a case which can't support your argument.
Then, there is the relative "success" stories from countries such as Cuba and China and the old Soviet Union. Reality is that, all of those are failed economies, which depend on others to allow them to show relative success. China's socialism is dependent upon the rest of the world's economies as clients for their huge work-force. Without the U.S. and others, China would be no better off than North Korea. The Soviet Union was "successful" until socialism proved that, it just can't last and support a population long-term. That's the same for any socialist country, where the economy can never be productive enough for growth, and eventually, collapses upon itself from the demands of its population, which stops being productive after many years. That happened in the Soviet Union and it's happened in many countries in Europe and is happening now in the U.S. with it's creeping socialism overtaking the productive members of society and being overtaken by the less productive.
