For the purpose of my article… and I think how most people understand those terms… when referring to capitalism and socialism, the terms mean:

Capitalism is where “owners” take risks and invest their capital resources to produce goods and services and retain the profits selling those goods and services generate. Those with more money (profits) get more of the goods and services produced by the economy and acquire such goods “in the marketplace”.

Socialism is where society “removes” the marketplace as the vehicle for exchanging goods and services and replaces it with a concept of “need” (or or “right” to a particular good or service) or a purely egalitarian division of the goods and services. So you either receive certain goods and services because you “need” them (whether you can afford them or not) or you get them because you “are”.

So people get Medicaid based on need and Social Security because they “are” of a certain age regardless of need. This form of socialism occurs in democracies where elected representatives of the society determine what services and how much of the economy should be “socialized” and how much should be left in the private sector.

A more limited form of socialism takes the form of subsidies. This tries to find a middle ground between allocating goods and services based on what people can afford and what they need by making those goods and services more affordable.

To a small degree charity acts to redistribute income in societies with a “surplus”. But in many democracies, government entitlements funded with taxes are used redistribute goods and services. It is the process by which a society uses government to “re-distribute” income earned under “capitalism” to those in need or otherwise entitled, that people refer to as “socialism” within our country.

I did introduce the idea of “kinship”. This is a key concept, since it explains why there are differences between countries with regard to how many and what services are provided through entitlements and to whom. People in countries feel different levels of obligation to “help” others living there.

So I am using the terms as they are understood by most voters… and tying it to the concept of “kinship”. But the point of my article was during this upcoming election, that voters need to press their politicians to reconcile the willingness of the people to “share” with those in need through taxes paid to the government with what the politicians are promising to give those in need.

If those things are not reconciled then you no longer of “sustainable socialism” but are headed for economic disaster which ends poorly especially for those most in need of entitlements.