"The rankings" don't say that, though, because there are no objective rankings. The rankings from a right-wing thinktank say that, because they have a clear interest in doing so.
What do you mean by "socialism" when you say that, then? Social democracy? Democratic socialism, as practised in dozens of countries worldwide? They're "radical and extreme", even though the US's brand of capitalism is much rarer and has worse outcomes?
If a ranking has Sweden as more capitalist than the US, i would question the ranking.
Tell me you don't know shit about socialism without saying you don't know shit about socialism.
They are the rankings that come up when you search for it, not my fault there isn't a left-wing thinktank that does them as well... Just because they came from someplace you don't like, doesn't mean they are wrong either. If you want to criticize something, don't use lazy ad-hominem attacks, criticize like Satinavian did down below. Just because Trump said something doesn't make it wrong nor does something Obama says is inherently right either.
---
Again, I'm not claiming expert knowledge or anything. All I did was look up the rankings and that's the main one that comes up. I honestly don't care if the US is more capitalist than Sweden or Denmark, I like the policies of said countries and that's what matters to me. Again, the fact is places that most liberals like and would like the US to copy most policy from are not socialist.
Uhh... socialism is a pretty basic concept... Can you tell me the most (in)famous example of socialism?
!? "It's not my fault I picked the first thing in google" is not a point. You shouldn't be looking for "Most capitalist v socialist!" rankings in the first place, because that's simplistic drivel and doesn't mean anything.
If you want to pass them off as "the rankings", as if they're objective or authoritative, then the source of those rankings is a completely valid avenue of criticism.
Uh-huh, and I already pointed out that 1) you got one of those definitions wrong to begin with, and 2) those definitions aren't mutually exclusive, while you're arguing elsewhere that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive.
Oh, is it! That's interesting, considering you got the definition wrong when asked to provide one.
Then give us a no-bullshit definition. One paragraph minimum. This should be fucking hilarious.
Which country is more capitalist wasn't the crux of my point; thus, I went with the 1st result.
Why do you need such a long definition for a basic concept?
OK. So we can just move on, without taking anything in that list seriously.
You tell me. You've insinuated that one precludes the other in the past.
The definition you gave involves the means of production being controlled by the state. That definition fails to cover most socialists and most theories of socialism. It fails to cover the utopians, the social democrats, the syndicalists... it even fails to cover Marxist socialism.
I keep things simple, no reason to make something more complex than it is and socialism is a one sentence definition. What about my super simple question that you haven't answered?
If it's not the crux of my point, then sure. I'm not going to take something anyone says completely seriously if it's not the crux of their point. People generally ramble on to some degree.
Yeah, exactly. You can't provide a definition because you don't know what socialism is. Drop the sophistry and just say that.
It was a stupid question, so I went ahead and disregarded it.
They will indeed, just like how people will generally run occasionally. And then there are Olympic athletes.
You can't be "50/50" because assigning proportions to something like this is completely arbitrary.
By most widely accepted definitions, it is a form of socialism, usually on the lighter side, or hybrid system that incorporates socialism.
And my point is still 100% valid.
Surely someone that knows socialism can tell me the most famous implementation of it.
... You know a whole bunch of us believe in abolishing states right? Like how do you manage to be this weapons grade wrong all of the time?
It's a stupid, bullshit question. You want me to say something like the USSR or China as a gotcha. Neither of those were socialist. In fact, they never really were purely communist either because they still had a ruling class. And yes, there is a difference between socialism and communism.
Another thing you don't seem to get is that socialism is not the opposite of capitalism, but an answer to it. We're not talking matter and anti-matter as you seem to think.
So you are still insisting they're mutually exclusive, then.
Socialism does not require the complete abolition of capitalism. You yourself were insisting just a few short posts ago that you didn't think they were mutually exclusive. Did you forget?
Yeah, that's not socialism (you can technically say it's a very extreme version of socialism or fork).
What's the 2nd "S" in USSR stand for? China is capitalist.
You have to pick a core system to use, you can put a bunch of socialist ideas into capitalism but it's still capitalism. It's like a video game, which needs a core gameplay loop.
...
Why're you asking me? Countries make different decisions. A country could have entirely different sectors socialised from another country... and yet the two could have the same proportion of socialised industry as a measure of expenditure/employment/production. This is why its useless to try to make numerical rankings or ascribe proportions of capitalism/socialism. Its not objective. There is no numerical scale. The rankings would be arbitrary.
Why? So far you're just insisting I "have to" and that one has to be the "core". Why?
And yet communism, by all accepted definitions, is a form of socialism.
You absolutely can have myriad different forms under one descriptor. That's how the English language works.
Yes, but your definition was wrong. It doesn't cover the majority of forms of socialism. You've shown very clearly from this entire conversation that you've got a simplistic, kid's understanding of what it means.
