I can see why you can't. You can't break away from bigoted stereotypes...people that you apply labels to.
But I'm not talking about people (as small minds are wont to do). I'm talking about principles (as larger minds are wont to do).
To avoid the confusion of conflating terms we must first isolate each term used in your term salads, and compare it to its opposite.
What is the opposite of social? Anti-social!
What is the opposite of save? Spend!
What is the antonym of conserve? Spend!
What are the two ways to spend? We can spend conservatively, or liberally.
What is the antonym of capital? Debt!
Capitalism: operating from a position of savings. (Strong position)
Debt: operating in/on a deficit. (Weak position).
The difference between capitalism and debt, to a trader, is the difference between operating on leverage (debt), or no leverage. Which is riskier?
I have not talked about people!
We need to get on the same page about terms first, before we can even wonder what principles people subscribe to, or why.
The reason you can't find a good country that is not socialistic is because there are no countries (what I call 'nations') that are not socialistic. It's the status quo! ( I keep saying that).
We do see anti-social behavior between nations from time to time. It's called "war".
And there is civil war to the extent that there is anti-social behavior within a nation.
A nation is social to the extent it's internal civil wars (politics) are not obvious, meaning, not shooting (hot) wars.
Regardless of how much bickering, how more or less social is the in-fighting, every nation has a pot of money that comes from the individual entities within the nation, which is meant to be shared somehow.
This is what political-national socialism is all about!
It's about how to collect and spend that pot of money.
There appear to be unfair/unwise ways to collect, as well as unfair/unwise ways to spend.
That's the whole story of national social politics in a nutshell.
