Your analogy isn't apt at all.No it isnt, as we have a very weak basis for socialized government compared to social democracies and other European models of democratic socialism. That you can't make the distinction without an all or nothing clause is a failure on your part, not the terms.
To me it's like going up to a gender fluid person and saying 'but look how many dictionaries and encyclopedias say you are either male or female!' That argument is also dismissive of nuance of modern study and also presenting a false dilemma.
Dictionary definitions for male & female get the bulk of applications correct.
Exceptions are typically complicated melding of the two.
But with "socialism", no country offered as an example fits the definition.
Moreover, those which do fit, fans of socialism often don't even acknowledge
s examples. And note the OP, in which Einstein excoriates capitalism...which
points to socialism which eschews it as the topic.
As I see it, the fans want some idealized theoretical version of socialism, based
not upon what actually occurs in the real world, but rather something which they
imagine socialism should be. And that isn't socialism at all (as defined), but
rather capitalism with an extensive social safety net, eg, Sweden, Canuckistan
(oft cited examples).
Any comment on the Scandanivian economy style Wikipedia entry I cited earlier?
The term "social democracy" seems better. But even "democratic socialism" beats
plain old "socialism".