Imo, part of the problem with these discussions is the terms, capitalism and socialism, have been stretched to mean much broader things than "private" vs "publi

Imo, part of the problem with these discussions is the terms, capitalism and socialism, have been stretched to mean much broader things than "private" vs "public" ownership. If you use the original definitions, than Denmark/Sweden are not very socialist at all; at least compared to China/Venezuela where the state (ie the public) owns a lot (this has nothing to do with whether the actual governments are democratic or not). In theory, there is no government in a purely Communist state. In theory, since everyone has everything they need, there should be no conflict. This has never actually worked in practice (see any study about hippie communes, aside from the fact no nation has every gone that far). For those Northern European countries, having high taxes and many more decommodified markets (like health care and education) are more about the "Welfare" state than capitalism vs socialism. Tho many people take about this as "socializing" the cost, it doesn't really have anything to do with socialism the economic model.