The fact that it will take a fictional example to satisfy your need for fair comparison is as troubling as it is hilarious. I presume that you don't consider the USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam or China to be true socialist nations. I suspect that this is either because they retain varying degrees of capitalism in their economies and/or have failed to achieve an equal or classless society. In any case, requiring a fictional example implies a complete disregard for empirical evidence and historical precedents. The fact true socialism has not been achieved raises many questions as to its feasibility in the real world. The fact that the ideological zealotry of so-call revolutionaries such as Lenin and Mao gave way to more pragmatic, market-centric policies of the NEP and Deng Xiaoping's reforms demonstrates the unfeasiblility of abandoning market principles. Classless equality is impossible to achieve because of vast differences in human ability, discipline and ambition. Someone who sucks at math will never be a rocket engineer, just as someone who is physically short will never be an NBA all-star.
Have you studied Israeli politics at all? Free market policies became more prevalent after the election of the Likud Party, who where and still are the main opposition to the left-wing Labor Party. Likud first came into power with the election of Prime Minister Begin in 1977, one of the founders of Likud. This was a result of general public disillusionment with Israel's left-wing elites and the growth the religious Jewish community, not American influence. Pro-market reforms intensified in the 1980's with the goal of ending chronic economic recessions, combating unemployment and promoting the growth the IT sector, which Israel's government values for its military applications.
Estonia is not the only post-communist success story. We also have Georgia and Poland, which have strong market tendencies. Meanwhile in Ukraine, the government continued to be managed by ex-communists, and as such it's economy never really recovered from it's post-communist hangover in the 1990s. Here we have evidence that US influence does not guarantee the adoption of capitalism, or the rejection of socialism, and that failure to adopt capitalism leads to poor economic performance.
One: I'm not Christian. Two: You advocate a philosophy that disregards private property and supports a system of institutionalized theft in the form of wealth redistribution. In short, cry me a river about the Golden Rule.
You're not considering the long-term. Low taxes mean more economic growth, which means more tax revenue in the future. It also means the growth of innovative industries such as IT and engineering, which can support government research initiatives by providing expertise and technology. The last statement is patently absurd, since the most advanced nations are all capitalist, with the exception of China.
Venezuela is a relevant example since they have many resources, yet fail to get any benefit from them due to poor management as a result of abandoning market principles. PDVSA, the Venezuelan state oil monopoly, is in debt to the tune of over $90 billion due to the government taking most of the company's revenue. This leaves PDVSA unable to fund R&D, or purchase foreign technology and/or expertise, which is part of the cause of Venezuela's economic troubles. Venezuela's oil is what is known as "heavy oil," which is expensive to extract and requires more refinement than "light oil." This means that with poor R&D and no funds to purchase foreign tech, Venezuela simply cannot benefit from its oil in the face of heavy foreign competition. Meanwhile, the UAE is now among the top 10 of the Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index. Their leaders know that they can't rely on oil forever, and their economy is shifting towards services, tourism, finance, shipping and even some manufacturing. Unlike Venezuela, the UAE is guided by market principles, and a future depletion of resources has ironically spurred growth in other sectors.
The influence of foreign meddling and colonialism is overstated. South Korea was a victim of brutal Japanese colonialism, and was devastated during WW2 and the Korean War, yet is now a wealthy nation which boasts highly sophisticated technologies, all achieved within one generation. Hong Kong and Singapore were members of the British Empire, and were devastated by the Japanese in WW2, but are now extremely wealthy. Poland was a victim of brutal German and then Soviet colonialism during and after WW2, having a portion of its territory permanently taken away by the USSR. Now, Poland's economy is strong, and so much so that Poland was mostly unaffected by the Great Recession of 2008. A history of oppression, colonialism and foreign meddling does not guarantee poverty. The poverty of the Third World is the result of poor political decision-making, which have profoundly negative economic results. The inter-ethnic fighting in Africa predates the arrival of the Europeans, therefore it is ridiculous to blame colonialism for Africa's inter-ethnic troubles.
Australia and New Zealand are very wealthy countries which are located in remote locations. Proximity is irrelevant. Israel received military aid in the form of outdated WW2 surplus and second hand European and American weapons in its early days, when it scored many of his key victories over its neighbors. Israel only started receiving substantial US financial assistance for its military in the 1980s. Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear arms. US President Jimmy Carter once stated that he believed that Israel had between 80 to 300 nuclear warheads, meaning that Israel's nuclear program was perfected at some point prior to substantial US assistance in the 1980's. In short, Israel was able to achieve many great feats with relatively little aid, impressive for a country of their size. Israel to some degree repays US aid by sharing military intelligence and technology with the US.
Wage enslavement is an oxymoron, because wages are paid to workers in exchange for voluntary labor. Your argument is invalid. Banning gambling will only push gambling underground, creating lucrative business opportunities for organized crime.
The USSR attempted to have retail without capitalism, and the result was chronic shortages of goods. Under capitalism, prices rise as as supply drops in the face of high consumption. This causes people to simply buy less of a good due to the higher prices. Without capitalism, prices generally remain constant, meaning that demand remains the same even in the face of low supply, leading to chronic shortages of goods. Marketing is a simple way of informing people of the existence of a product. Word of mouth would limit knowledge of a product to a small population of buyers and those they associate with, while marketing can potentially reach millions of people. Therefore it is obvious why companies invest in marketing. Actually, marketing frequently results in innovation in the forms of online streaming, apps on phones, and associated networking and computing technologies. Marketing often attracts customers to IT products, which stimulates profits for IT firms and again stimulates innovation in the IT sector.
If sin is indeed a natural inclination, then it is inherent to human nature and
no economic system will combat it. Socialism is inherently greedy, as it implies that people are entitled to a good living whether or not they contribute any sort of productivity to society. That implies that the productive are essentially enslaved to the unproductive. That is certainly not charitable or kind. The fact that socialism enables such exploitation on the part of the unproductive, rather than encouraging the long-term cultivation of discipline and work ethic, implies a disregard for patience.
There is a vast body of empirical evidence which demonstrates that the state is inefficient, and is often biased by political considerations and ideology. Therefore, to trust the state to impartially and effectively judge the merits of individuals is illogical. The fact that you consider human sacrifice virtuous is quite troubling.
India
is socialist. Socialism been written into their constitution since 1976, and was effectively policy since it's independence, much to the detriment of its economy and quality of life. Hard labor is not good when technological alternatives exist. Mechanization and automation reduce hazards, improve working conditions and increase the skill, and therefore pay, of the workforce. They also increase overall production, which in the context of agriculture and medicine imply profound benefits to the population for reasons that are all too obvious. You apparently prefer hard labor and starvation to the improvement of the quality of life.
Assuming that all humans are moral is patently absurd. How do you account for Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or Charles Manson? To say that not supporting socialism or at least welfare programs leads to wanting to kill the poor is a non sequitur. Lots of people oppose socialism and welfare, but very few are guilty of actively attacking or killing the poor.