I made the reductio ad absurdum about as clear as I could. If you're still struggling with that, I really can't help you. You might have to take a logic class.
As for Socialism, it's a broad term, and runs the gamut from completely centralized economies including 5-year-plans a la China and the USSR, to nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, to regulated market economies with some nationalized industries a la most liberal democracies.
For example, New Zealand's current government is run by the Labour party, which is explicitly Democratic Socialist, similar to UK's labour party. Nobody thinks that China and New Zealand are the same, but both contain elements of socialism. Both also contain elements of Neoliberalism.
"Neoliberal" is probably a term you're not familiar with, but is an economic system associated with a encouraging private industry and removing regulations that prevent it from flourishing. The Koch brothers, who called themselves "classical liberals", would be great examples of people who push a neoliberal agenda (or did, until one of them died).
As with most things, it's a matter of degrees. You could line up 10 libertarians and ask them what exactly "limited government" means, and get 10 different answers. The same as you could line up 10 political parties with socialism in the name and get 10 different political platforms.
Ah just what I thought. You spewed a bunch or random ******* thinking you were cleaver and when you got called on it you run and hide behind reductio ad absurdum.
Wow what a load of *******, oops, I mean smug hubris mixed with Relativism spewing information with no understanding. Did you get an A in whatever bullshit modern interruptive dance class you were taking with this?
So basically you just tried to argue that almost the full economic spectrum and any political structure short of anarchy is socialisms.
There is a clear, fully accepted, definition with a few key elements that delineate socialism. Granted there may be a few minor points open for debate, but Socialism is clearly defined and you missed the mark by a mile. It is almost like you are trying to say any government regulation is socialism.
Since you like Wikipedia:
Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with economic liberalism and free-market capitalism.[2]:7[3] It is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, austerity, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society;[4][12] however, the defining features of neoliberalism in both thought and practice have been the subject of substantial scholarly debate.[13][14] Neoliberalism constituted a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which had lasted from 1945 to 1980
en.wikipedia.org
And from Britannica
Neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice,
it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics. In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital.
Neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition.
www.britannica.com
and then there is this take
Capitalism and Neoliberalism: What’s the Difference?
"It was put to me recently during a lecture, after posing a question in which I used the word
‘Neoliberalism,’ that the term “is problematic because it is nothing more than a synonym for Capitalism and therefore only confuses the issue.” It goes without saying that I didn’t agree. Capitalism and Neoliberalism are in many respects similar economic ideologies, but as socio-political realities they are very different beasts. Even the way in which we speak of them indicates that there is something of a difference between the two."
Capitalism and Neoliberalism are in many respects similar economic ideologies, but as socio-political realities they are very different beasts. Even the way in which we speak of them indicates that…
randompublicjournal.com