Very good article. Reading through people's posts, I see that the majority of them agree: socialism survives precisely because it IS a religion, and that in fact was how it was presented.
As for capitalism, it is not the product of any one person (there's no cult-figure, such as Marx, Lenin or Che Guevara) and is not, in a sense, something that was planned but is more or less the natural order of humanity, based on the right of human beings to own property individually and dispose of it as they wish. Hence it's not dramatic enough and it's a little bit hard to dress it up. No "Capitalist Day" parades, for example! Most of all, it's not a religion, in any way, shape or form, whereas Socialism is.
IOW, capitalism is social in nature - unlike "social"ism, which is a deceptively coined word. All leftists reflexively distort the term, "social;" leftists say "society should" when they mean nothing other than that government "should" do (whatever). IOW, leftists posture as standing for "society" when what they actually advocate is not social-ism but government-ism - tyranny.Socialism stands for government ownership of the means of production, which means that socialism takes not only the means of production but the particular goods to be produced as a given (After all, different goods require different means of production). If the goods to be produced are taken as a given, the idea of physical progress has been rejected. So much for the leftist's claim to the mantle of "progressive" - leftists are profoundly reactionary.
With capitalism, "the poor" in America have reached the standard of living enjoyed by the middle class only 50 years ago. And considering the advantages in travel, in convenience, and in medical care for self and family, an American secretary today would not care to live in the circumstances of Queen Victoria (1819-1901). Socialism would have prevented all, or nearly all, of that progress. Over any appreciable period of time, socialism shares not wealth, but poverty.