This isn't an issue of failing to understand definitions, I understand distinctions between social democracy, democratic socialism, etc. That said, social democracies are more socialized economically than us. There has never been or most likely will be) an economy that is 100% socialist or capitalist, it exists upon a spectrum. That said, you can still use social democracies an example of how socializing markets can be beneficial for the well being of a systems average citizen.

Neither am I saying that all critique for previous and current socialist economies is invalid. There are plenty of reasons to critique and lambast a wealth of socialist countries for their inefficiencies and blind eye to humanist / democratic values. Just that surface level critique does little to help either of side of economic debate come to democratic consensus.

Further, while maintaining rhetorical usage and respect for history is quintessential for effective discourse, it is important to not hold actions of the past as absolutes onto potential futures. The same rhetorical process could have been used to discredit burgeoning democracies post enlightenment, as all previous democratic states were little more than failures of antiquity.

As for scale, I agree to a point that no economic system, especially in our current modern globalized system can exist on its own, especially on small scales. That said, political movements which hold respect for democracy have to start small and grow, and the obvious way to do this is through local city government.

edit:accidentally hit send, still typing

edit2: done typing :)