The thing you're missing about "free market capitalism" is that, in the USA today, our "free market capitalism" absolutely does include state patent systems leveraged to create abusive monopolies. You might call it "crony capitalism", and you claim that it's not "true" "free market capitalism" (which sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy to me), but the fact is, one of two major political parties in this country does say that what we have now, and what they want to retain, is "free market capitalism".

As for "socialism", again you're disagreeing on definitions. To most Americans, Sweden, Norway, Canada, etc. are "socialist".

Almost no product that you use is subject to abusive state monopolies, which is why almost every product you use is competitively priced. So no, free market capitalism is not indistinguishable from crony capitalism.

As far as definitions go, my definition of "socialism" is actual socialism, not social democracy. This quote is overused at this point, but Danish PM Rasmussen explicitly clarifies "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy." Adding central planning to ameliorate some of the rough edges of market economies does not create a socialist state.

>As far as definitions go, my definition of "socialism" is actual socialism, not social democracy.

Again, most Americans will disagree with you. The definition of a word is whatever most people agree it is.

>This quote is overused at this point, but Danish PM Rasmussen explicitly clarifies

No one in Denmark has any authority to define a word in the English language as used by Americans.

>Adding central planning to ameliorate some of the rough edges of market economies does not create a socialist state.

According to Americans, it absolutely does.

>So no, free market capitalism is not indistinguishable from crony capitalism.

Again, according to many Americans it is.

Here's a challenge for you: pick out 100 different rural counties across America. Go to each county, and take a poll, asking them, "Is Denmark a socialist country?" I guarantee you that a clear majority of those polled will answer "yes".

If this conversation is now between whether "socialism" means "socialism" or "social democracy" to you, I actually don't care. As long as you are not advocating for a revolution that results in actual socialism, then I have no problem with you.

I'm not advocating for anything. All I'm doing is attempting to point out that it's really hard to have a rational discussion about something when people can't agree on basic concepts and definitions. And the problem in America now is this: we can't even agree on what "socialism" is, or whether we want it or not.

Just try having a conversation with the average American voter (esp. in rural districts) about "socialism" vs. "social democracy" vs. whatever, and see how far you get. They're probably going to say Denmark is "socialist" because they saw it on Fox News. But these are the people electing the leadership here (or about half of it anyway). We have two "sides", and even many on your side probably would have a hard time with these concepts. It's no wonder things are so broken here, and I don't see how it can get better any time soon when the two sides can't even have a rational discussion because they can't even agree on basic language or concepts.