When you won't agree with the most basic of definitions by going "no, not true, I know better but I don't have cite anyone just trust me bruv", then me citing who thinks that the very basic definition is actually the very basic definition, but you then continuing to disagree with it without being able to provide any sources at all... what use is trying to have a discussion? You're not ready for one. You've made up your mind and you just haphazardly try to equivocate. Like I said, I've had this exact same conversation hundreds of times.

So, to address your link... "maybe keep reading"?

Types of socialism vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, and the structure of management in organizations. Socialist systems divide into non-market and market forms.

Almost as if market economies weren't all capitalist. Almost as if equating market economies to capitalism was as silly as equating cell growth to cancer. As established by me earlier, and the link you provided, modern socialism includes market socialism. Of course you might be oblivious to something like that if say, you were just pretending to understand the subject.

So now that you realise that you can't possibly back up your "social democracy is actually capitalism" garbage, you start shifting the goalposts, trying to equivocate on what socialism is in general. (Again, been here, done this, 2000000x)

You're now making the exact argument that I said you were, the entire time. You're directly saying that there is no private ownership under socialism.

Do us a service. Go to Google and type in "define socialism".

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR REGULATED by the community as a whole.

Again, thanks for the laughs.

Edit, oh right, please do cite a source or any support for this "social democracy is capitalism" bullshit, why don't you? I'll wait here. :)