One has to be pretty careful about definitions in these sorts of discussions. I found the whole discussion of Haiti and Bolivia to be rather simplistic.
Capitalism isn't just free enterprise or private ownership. Societies going back to the dawn of time have had those characteristics. Capitalism is really more of a 17th or 18th century invention in which financial innovations like the invention of the corporation and other legal structures that made it possible for groups of people to accumulate capital and deploy capital as a means to control and acquire means of production. Prior to that time there was wealth in society and as well as free markets and private ownership but economies were really more controlled by hereditary monarchs and nobility as well as the church, rather than accumulations of capital. The means of production in feudal Europe was largely the land which was controlled by nobility and aristocrats through inheritances (the oldest son inherits the estate) and not generally subject to sale on the open market. The intent was more to preserve the aristocracy and political control rather than most efficiently build wealth.
By that definition, Haiti is really not a capitalist society, it is really more of an anarchy or failed state. People cannot effectively deploy capital in Haiti to any productive use because the legal and social structures to make that possible don't exist. There might be huge unregulated markets in Haiti but it isn't capitalist. Criminal gangs run the the place, not capital.
In any event, no modern and prosperous country is completely capitalist or socialist.
In the US, for example, we have a complicated blend.
Take health care, which represents about 1/5th of the entire US economy. We have the following different systems operating simultaneously:
- We have a sector with private ownership of both the health insurance sector and the health care provider sector. That is all of us who have private insurance or privately pay for medical care at private hospitals and clinics.
- We have a sector with public ownership of the health insurance sector but with private ownership of the health care provider networks. That is everyone who is on Medicare or Medicaid but uses their Medicare or Medicaid cards to obtain care from private hospitals and clinics.
- We also have a sector with public ownership of both the insurance sector and the provider sector. That is the VA health care system as well as all the public clinics and hospitals around the country that largely take Medicare and Medicaid patients.
- We also have both private and public investment in medical research and science because it is in the public interest to do so and simply relying on private investment and the profit motive to direct research efforts would leave massive gaps. Without public funding there would be no incentive to ever investigate cures for rare diseases, for example
Why do we do that? Because of "market failures". The free market does not effectively distribute health care to the poor or elderly. No insurance company is going to insure a 75 year old patient with multiple chronic health issues. Nor is the private sector going to insure those in poverty or wounded and disabled veterans. So the government has to step in.
Education is a similarly large component of the economy. But we have a complicated system of private for-profit "capitalist" schools and universities, private non-profit schools and universities (often owned by religious institutions not capitalists) and the largest sector by far is public schools and universities. Why do we do this? Because without public subsidy of the education sector large portions of the population would remain uneducated and that would greatly diminish the wealth and productivity of the nation. It would also massively increase crime and social dysfunction if large portions of the population lacked the skills for productive employment. That is essentially what you have in countries like Haiti. No "capitalist" can drop a semi-conductor plant or software engineering firm into rural Haiti because the workforce to operate it simply does not exist. Not to mention all the structures to protect and preserve that investment also do not exist.
Health care and education are just two examples of where free market failures make public investment and regulation necessary. Or "socialism" if you want to call public insurance like Medicare and public schools and universities "socialist"
There are endless examples of other sectors of the economy where free market failures necessitate public investment. Transportation is an example. We have public roads and public airports. We have public infrastructure all along our coastlines to aid in maritime navigation from the Coast Guard to public canals and harbors. Our GPS system which the entire transportation sector relies on is entirely government run or "socialist".
The environment is another area where public intervention is necessary to prevent private interests from spoiling our air, water, and lands. In the 19th Century private corporations just dumped their waste into our lakes and rivers and filled our skies with their pollution. The air in cities like Pittsburgh and Cleveland was unbreathable and polluted rivers were catching on fire. It took government regulation to end that. Capitalism wasn't going to do it on its own.
In all productive modern societies you have a blend of both private and public investment. You have private investment and ownership of the sectors where that works best like farming. And you have public ownership where that is necessary and most effective such as healthcare, education, transportation, and environmental protection.
