'Capitalism' is not 'Democratic', it never will be 'Socialistic' either, at the fundamental level, neither of them are true to their patronage.
A 'democrat' exercise's choice by how they vote in the expectation of a particular outcome that 'supposedly' , brings the, ' greatest possible happiness to the greatest number of people' .
A 'Socialist' wants to produce the above objectives by arbitrarily deciding how, where, when & whom should have the fruits of someone else's labour through the redistribution of taxes levied on anything that moves.
This is incorrect, and is a pernicious stereotype of socialism as being a Stalinist strongman authoritarian over everything, which is certainly not needed these days -- the major countries of the world have already industrialized. With real, egalitarian socialism the workers of the world could collectively decide how best to industrialize the remaining parts of the world, and to get food and electricity everywhere, etc.
A 'Capitalist' wants to apportion the greatest happiness on himself by charging an excess of what any goods or services cost to produce or sell in order to maximise his profit.
His 'taxpayer' is the customer from whom he levies the 'tax' that will earn him his profit, the customer though, has what neither 'Socialism', or 'Democracy' can provide- choice in where or how & to whom they give their disposable wealth to in return for material or other happiness.
It's best to call this "tax" a 'bribe', since the capitalist has hegemonic control over productive property, like factories. Profits are an additional expense to funding.
What about the *non*-disposable monies that poorer people *have* to exchange for the necessities of life and living -- ? Why does the world society tolerate an economics that impoverishes billions while modern-day productive capacities would readily *wipe out* such privation, given a more appropriate method of distribution for those who need basic things.
The latter case illustrates that the consumer or customer always has the freedom to choose, providing that they have the means to make such choices, that's the fool-proof logical reason to never vote, because, by so doing, you get an expanding state.
So you prefer the voting of dollars over the voting by person. 'Nuff said.
A 'Socialist' government that has only one objective , to extract the maximum taxes from each, whilst 'redistributing' the minimum to the least well-off('Socialism'),in order to maintain the status quo of the ruling 'elite' capitalist class.
This is a flat-out *misrepresentation* -- yes, socialism could very well have its own government, a workers state, but, no, money would not be needed, nor would taxes, because the workers could simply make what they think society needs (preferably aided by empirical information), and the goods / materials produced could simply be claimed by those who need them the most. (That's what my 'labor credits FAQ' addresses, by the way.) There would no longer be a ruling capitalist class because the workers would be the ones making decisions over what gets produced, and what doesn't.
A 'Conservative' type of government, which includes the 'Liberal' flavour, exist only to maintain the capitalist system, for which the resources that it spends are distributed to it's property wealthy 'friends' of the 'elite' type, whether at a personal level, as 'reliefs', lower taxes,or 'tax breaks'.
They then double down on their own version of 'Socialism' towards Capitalism, through every conceivable reduction in business taxes, expanding tax reliefs, inflated public contract prices, bail-outs, 'write-downs' or tax 'gap' that they can get away with, whilst minimising the level of subsistence 'affluence' of the less well-off by using 'austerity' as an instrument in which to wage economic war against the less well-off whom they created in the first place.
One can be an 'apologist' to either side, they are simply two sides of the same coin, both sides have a vested interest in creating a schism between people through the creation of rich & poor.
'Rich and poor' is *okay* as a quick description, but I'll remind that what's *really* at stake is how society produces the things that it needs, and how it disposes of its material surplus. Once the working class has control of the levers of society the use of money would be rendered *superfluous* since exchange values in their totality would no longer be required.
The Tory side want cheap labour for their 'friends', whilst the 'Socialist' want the votes of the poor or less well-off, it's the people that always pay, if you are 'well-off', paying is no object, not so if poor or less 'well-off', for these two groups are never fully compensated for inflation in the capitalist system(caused by government).
You're using 'inflation' in a generic alarmist way without looking at how the various interests would be affected by it -- inflation in the economy would allow the poorer types to *pay off* their debts more cheaply, and it would provide cheap money for investments in real-world production. It's always the *privileged* types who scream 'inflation' because inflation would erode their stores of cached value -- look at Bitcoin, for example, which is a *deflationary* financial vehicle for those who want a castle-wall around their wealth.
At root, all that government does, is 'skim off money from people, either directly or indirectly(as in spending taxes), or business, to spend how it sees fit, it's the people that always pay, not business, because taxes are always passed on to the customer by business & the end user is always a personal customer or consumer.
This, too, is too generic, because you're not looking at *what* the government spends its money *on* -- I'm all in favor of any government -- even capitalist government -- policies that provide for *human need*, like food, transportation, housing, education, energy, etc., but I'm *against* government spending on *warfare*, killing people just so that the global pie gets sliced up a different way.
We do not have a true Laissez Faire economic system, if we had, the state would not bail out businesses or even support them, instead business continue trading each year because the state allows badly run businesses to 'write down' their losses against any taxable gains each tax year, whereas a poor person would just be unable to seek redress for their own financial incontinence.
The western capitalist system is surviving solely on increasing dent which is 'creating' money, the effect is higher inflation, which is being dishonestly reported by governments, in order to reduce compensation payments to it's creditors or those long term liabilities to pensioners or benefit claimants, as a result currency values are being deflated towards the status of ;'fiat' status, as the price of gold would attest.
Actually, you're *incorrect* here -- in the U.S., for example, the economic environment is now, and has been, one of *deflation*, as seen in historically low interest rates (and even *negative* interest rates in parts of Europe).
The starkest issue facing the capitalist class these days is that of *overproduction*, where prices head *downward*, thereby shutting off incentives for spurring further production, and profit-making -- the world is awash in cash and commodity goods yet there aren't enough opportunities for *velocity* in the capitalist economy, and so things just linger on as they are with no real economic growth (GDP).