Others have answered well. You (and the OP, I think) are the ones stuck in some kind of 1950s barroom debate.
That list is only “self identified”.
According to this site, based on welfare expenditure and centralized control:
http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
The terms “communism” and “socialism” get thrown around a lot interchangeably. And they seem to be used interchangeably with “welfare” or any sort of socialized safety nets or even just “high taxes”.
So, without getting into semantic debate, the most successful “socialist” countries seem to be the ones where there is democratically elected leadership, private ownership of businesses and adequate government spending on public infrastructure and social programs.
The unsuccessful ones are kleptocracies where a authoritarian government nationalizes industries and business at will in the name of “the people”.
Me? Good grief. You have zero idea of my thoughts on this unless you’ve read my posts on socialism in the past…which I can almost guarantee you haven’t. In this thread I’ve ASKED for people to give their fucking OPINION on which countries they THINK are socialist. Full stop. What I was looking for is something like msmith537’s post. I wasn’t looking for a debate on what socialism is…if I wanted a debate I’d have put this in GD and asked for that specifically.
I didn’t ask what other people have said. I asked you to answer a question.
He seems to be making a lot of unfounded assumptions. I think it’s pretty ironic that he thinks YOU are some sort of conservative dinosaur stuck in the 50’s, though. 
I think the problem is we combine two separate ideas under the single term of socialism. One is the traditional economic meaning whereby the government (or the people if you prefer) own businesses. The other is a government that has an extensive social welfare system.
Well, I am in the fifties but I expect the passage of time will eventually stick me in the sixties.
My own thought is that when people think of ‘socialism’ or socialist state/nation’, they are thinking of policy based socialism (i.e. socialist type policies and programs), not economic or even really political socialism as it’s defined. From that perspective, just about every modern, western nation is ‘socialist’, as they all (including the US) have policies and programs that stem from socialist roots. Economic socialism is pretty much dead and buried at this point…there are very few nations that have anything like a pure socialist (or communist) economic system. Some have hybrid system, with some capitalist economic systems riding on top of a socialist/communist economic base, but even those lean more towards capitalist economic systems with authoritarian or totalitarian political controls (like China, for instance).
What I had HOPED to get out of this thread was individual 'dopers thoughts on what popped into their mind when they thought of which countries were socialist. Like most of the posters here, my own first thoughts were ‘well, it’s complicated’…but was hoping to just get some off the cuff thoughts without digging too deeply into it (as we inevitably do on this board :p).
Precisely. As I said above, Americans seem to get “socialism” and “social spending” confused a lot. That’s how you get people in all seriousness thinking the Nordic nations are socialist.
Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea.
And I’m (along with others) pointing out that it’s a questionably-formed question whose answers will represent nothing much in a meaningful sense. Precisely because, as I and others, like:
(and well put) …have pointed out that “socialist” is at least a two-axis variable, and confusing or combining the two leads to almost meaningless conclusions and answers. There’s nothing complicated about it unless you’re going to jump up and down on the OP and insist there’s a single answer, after having made such a clear and distinct differentiation.
And no, I don’t have “my own term for this kind of government” when the terms ‘economic socialism’ and ‘political socialism’ serve quite well. They’re just not the same thing, nor do they necessarily combine to form any one thing. So asking the question “which of these things do you think is _____,” when the blank can be interpreted at least two distinct ways, is not going to lead to any very meaningful answers. Even to the OP, unless he’s just looking for confirmation bias.
When I hear the word, I think of most European, non-post-USSR nations, as well as all Anglophone countries outside of the US including India. I don’t know enough about the social policies of Latin America and Africa to classify them. That is, unless the speaker clearly intends it to be an insult, in which case it is a clear equivocation between that type of social democracy and communisim. What I don’t think of is formally Communist nations such as North Korea and China. I think of them as either capitalist dictatorships, because some of them have transformed into that, or simply dictatorships.
You’re still dancing around the simple question I asked. If economic capitalism is the opposite of economic socialism, what is the opposite of political socialism?
I don’t see anywhere that you asked that question. Maybe you could point it out.
You’re also asking for a two-valued answer to a multi-valued question. I don’t know that “economic capitalism” and “economic socialism” are necessarily opposites, as opposed to just selections from within the range of economic systems. (And fairly opposed ones, yes, but not necessarily hard opposites.)
But okay, I can play: IF economic capitalism and economic socialism are opposites, then the opposite of political socialism would be oligarchy or dictatorship. Neither of those is really a good match since it doesn’t say anything about how the Oligarchs or Dictator treats the population - there’s nothing stopping them from being lavish with social benefits, whether they’re required to or not - but simply paralleling it with (the economic concept of) capitalism is between misleading and meaningless.
I’m not sure there is an established, or well-known term for a social/political system that completely disregards the population from a government or collective standpoint. Even Capitalism doesn’t, except at a theoretical extreme.
[QUOTE=Amateur Barbarian]
And I’m (along with others) pointing out that it’s a questionably-formed question whose answers will represent nothing much in a meaningful sense. Precisely because, as I and others, like:
[/QUOTE]
It will represent their viewpoint on what they think are socialist countries. I’m not asking for a doctoral dissertation on socialism as viewed through 21st century lenses, I’m asking what people think because I’m interested in their actual take on the question. On where people’s thinking is on this point. Not sure why this is so difficult for you, or where you got that by asking this I’m stuck in a 50’s mindset or the rest of that horseshit. You seem to think the question isn’t worth asking or having answered because…well, who knows. If you really feel that way, feel free not to answer an IMHO thread asking such a bogus, to you, question.
But, see, I WANT people’s meaningless or confusing answers because I’m interested in how they THINK about this or what comes to mind. If I wanted a technical discussion on what socialism is or isn’t, well…hell, I’d just ask myself or talk to friends of mine who were poli sci majors. I’m unsure what you thought this thread was, or why it so offends you and your sensibilities, but this is just an IMHO thread where I was hoping to see what people who don’t have a socialist stick up their ass or really think about how wronged socialism is in the US or whatever you are on about think about it. I am not looking to debate the issue (thus, it’s not in GD), or tell folks they are wrong (or right) about their selections…I just wanted to see what their selections were.
Simple answer: None.
You defined the situation as axes. That’s how axes work. If you don’t think they are opposites, you should have chosen a different metaphor.
So according to your definition of political systems, governments are either socialist or oligarchy/dictatorships or somewhere on the spectrum between those two.
Where do you feel the United States is on that political line? Where do you feel the People’s Republic of China is?
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
It’s mutual. You seem to be arguing with someone else most of the time and demanding answers from me.
I’ve been making one simple point since the beginning, and you’ve turned it into a cross-examination on the meaning of my meanings’ meanings. Enough, thanks.
You can’t even grasp that you never asked the question above, despite your selective quoting. Allow me:
When the “question” you asked was:
Which snark doesn’t really deserve an answer, and has nothing much to do with what I was saying, and in fact is trying to force me to answer the pointlessly contradictory question in the OP, which is what nearly every post of mine objects to.
Paint me as completely exasperated with discussions of “socialism” in which few if any of the participants can differentiate between economic and political systems but insist we discuss it as if there’s no difference. Whether intending to or not, such muddled exchanges are barely worthy of a union ironworker’s bar in 1958, or the back room of the Trump White House, in which “socialism” is a formless evil coming to eat up good American boys and girls.
When you act like you have superior knowledge to everyone else in the conversation, people are going to challenge you to see if you can back it up. And when people challenge you and you evade answering questions, they’re going to suspect you don’t know as much as you pretend to.