Sure, you could have a Free Market Socialist economy in which there are sectors of the economy managed by the state. And that there's a lot to tease out in ter

Sure, you could have a Free Market Socialist economy in which there are sectors of the economy managed by the state. And that there's a lot to tease out in terms of what level of the state is doing the management (municipal utilities vs a national health care system, for instance). This is also true of Capitalism. But it's not like Free Market Socialism sits in the middle of the spectrum from Capitalist Free Market to State Socialism. If anything it exists on a separate spectrum entirely where you're taken the variable "ownership of business" and flipped it to "workers". And then there's a different variable that forms the axis "how much of the economy is state managed". But even the question of "how much" is the wrong one here. A much more valuable question is "which sectors" are state managed and why. And, as referenced above, at what level of the state. And then there's the question of what kind of state we're dealing with (democratic or authoritarian) and how it's organized. I think these sorts of things are why I don't generally find spectrums helpful when it comes to economics, politics, and policy. Then tend to boil down complex systems to single features of those systems. But the impact of those features depends heavily on the other pieces in the system. It's a feature of complex systems that tweaking a single variable can have unexpected consequences because it's heavily impacted by the state of the other variables in the system. I think, in general, it's more useful to describe the systems as coherent objects with certain sets of features. Even trying a multi-dimensional map gets tricky fast.