Unlike socialism that is both economic and social.

Without private ownership of means of production there is no capitalism.

Because its the foundations of capitalism.

Couldn't the defintion of Capitalism be: High economic freedom

There can be a free market but then without private property the marker relies on workers productivity and guilds if you are under utopian socialist system.

Economic freedom isnt bound to capitalism.

for example Yugoslavia a socialist state had more economic freedoms than some capitalist states.

Private property rights are right?

Do you knowwhat private property means to start with.

Sure

Your car, house and toothbrush are personal property.

Yes

Private property is a resource, that is used by a machine/worker to produce a consumer good you sell and take all the profits generated by everything needed for that product and everyones labor, then distribute it according to your will.

It doesnt mean without private property there are no managers and business positions.

Its just on how income is generated.

Is private property only with Capitalism or?

Yes.

and Corporatism.

however

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.