I'm not saying you're necessarily defending it even if I think you're wrongly equating capitalism and market economy.

I just feel that for the most part, basically the "Red Scare" made people think that the only thing that's an alternative to capitalism is full blown communism, which implies that all market economies are capitalist, which they aren't.

I'm not blaming you — I'm blaming some of the implications of the language you've used. There is a difference.

Yeah, there's a lot of good things about Finland when comparing internationally, but I can tell you, there are some rather bad things as well. While "first amendment auditors" in the US are sometimes annoying as fuck, we honestly need a little bit of that type of spirit here. We've got authoritarian issues. Honestly.

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/25412-hs-most-finns-would-accept-human-rights-violations-to-enforce-border-act.html

https://unric.org/en/finland-must-address-legacy-of-human-rights-violations-against-sami-people-says-un-expert/

https://harvardpolitics.com/nordic-racism/

I'd just like to live somewhere else for a while, maybe that might give me a newfound respect to licking some boots or something, as currently respecting the Finnish police- and justice system in general is a very nauseating idea indeed.

My point is that adopting socialism would make the poor richer and the megarich poorer, and if it's just socialism, a "market socialism", not a "communism", if you will, then nothing would really change for most of the people. Well, nothing would change to be more negative at least. The megawealthy would still be rich, but they wouldn't be as disgustingly rich as now. Homelessness or hunger wouldn't exist. But still a lot of people basically consider "socialism" to be a curse-word?