I think in the way the word is used today, you are correct. They do not fall under the more traditional definition of state owned means of production, but they would fall under what is labeled as socialism in our country today.
They are all very successful with some of the happiest people on the planet. So if you would call them socialist, what does that say about socialism?
Which is why most on the "right" will not allow those countries to be called socialist.
That is funny. By the definition most of them seem to use they would be socialist. I don’t agree with that definition.
which was the point of this thread. There is no set definition, it changes more often than people change their underwear.
Same thing can be said about Conservatism and you have different Conservative movements from Socisl to Fiscal.
No state has been a true state of Marxism but some have claimed to be influenced by it even if they fell far short of the meaning.
So is there a true Socialist State?
No, just like there is no true nation ran by pure Capitalism...
I would not say that there were no pure capitalist or socialist states.
Capitalism is profit motivated, and when Stalin controlled everything in the USSR, that was purely all for his own personal profit.
That was pure capitalism.
It can't be communism or socialism, because they both imply group, collective, and collaborative ownership. Which means group, collective, and collaborative decision making as well as profit sharing.
Under the USSR there was no group, collective, or collaborative decision making or profit sharing.
So clearly the USSR was total capitalism.
And in fact, all feudal states and slavery were pretty much pure capitalism.
Since socialism and communism imply group, collective, and collaborative decision making, then socialism and communism always have to allow for the group to collectively decide to allow particular instances of capitalism.
Socialism and communism do NOT at all demand that all enterprises be collectively and collaboratively owned or operated.