The point, rather, is that the choice between capitalism and socialism is a trade off. Other things being equal, choosing capitalism (beyond the peak of Fordist industrial development) usually means suffering more inequality and more insecurity for the sake of higher productivity and faster economic development, and choosing socialism usually means enjoying less inequality and less insecurity at the cost of lower productivity and slower economic development. The Chinese, Vietnamese, and Indian (including a lot of Indian Communist) leaders clearly chose the former, and most of the rest of their masses have so far acquiesced to the choices made by their leaders (though they may not continue to do so in the event of a severe economic downturn).
But other things are seldom equal, and outside the West, with the exception of several up-and-coming nations, choosing capitalism usually means choosing more inequality and more insecurity without getting the benefits of higher productivity and faster economic development, and in the worst cases their states fail and their nations plunge into chaos.
Last but not the least, choosing capitalism globally means saying yes to the growing North-South gap and bidding farewell to many of the greatest cities* in the world, dooming them to climate change and rising seas.
* Tehran, my love, is not on any coast, thank God. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>