For example chinese socialism has provate property.

But its

High economic freedom includes high private property rights, this means high economic freedom is only with "capitalism".

While that's true, the rights are much less than any normal first world nation.

they are responsible to the government not the individual.

But they have property.

The *rights* at which vary, from very unfree to free.

That's what I think you can define 'Capitalism' as "high economic freedom". Without high property rights there isn't "high economic freedom".

What is economic freedom for a worker if his labour and production is someones elses property.

So its exploit or be exploited.

No middle ground.

Even small business have to grow or fail.

Property isnt needed for economic freedom as long you can produce or have a guild.

Sure, but that's not what economic freedom is defined as here.

Any good can be sold.

I'm using Heritage's index.

Regardless of private ownership.

Capitalist always have their definition because if a definition was to be made universal from all political perspectives they wouldnt have arguments to defend it.

I mean they would but they would be pretty bad lol.

Well this is why I don't argue any defintions of Capitalism and Socialism, it's pointless.

So you think the status quo is in decline?

Its forced to.

The problem is that even tho it is in decline it will only adapt and not transform.

So what makes you think it's in decline?

Like any metrics?

Of capitalism or general global economy?

I thought the global economy is "capitalist"

I mean capitalism failed, because it didnt deliver what it promised.

Global economy is neo liberal global market economy.

But yes its that way because of capitalism.

Capitalism as its originally defined has transformed.

Kind of socialism transforming to communism in a weird sense.

What did it promise?

But this time its capitalism to global market economy.

It promised economic and personal freedoms yet made them reliant on property owners and wage labour.

Take it this way.

I don't support that.

I support high economic freedom and personal freedom.

I,e most first world countries are "very free" on the index of economic freedom.

So I'm obviously for free markets.

Under socialism you work in a factory, you are paid depending on your labor, your productivity is valued, the state allows you and sometimes organizes vacations, holidays etc, allowing your personal freedoms.
Under capitalism you work in a factory, you are paid depending on your rank/position, position is predetermined by your relationship with individual that owns the factory and documents (education etc, even tho it may not be related to the specific task you are given), your free time is regulated by the property owner, you use your own labor money, which is not your own because it goes to the owner, then owner distributes a share he wants to keep you in line and allow you to use that money for your personal freedoms, even tho your needs are not met and to meet them you use that money, making it basically only a slave wage allowing you to function more, and the only reason you function is to profit.