state ownership of a state enterprise as some kind of a metric for how socialistic a country is. Clearly I overshot it by one dimension.
As I referenced above the nationalization of private companies was a key factor in the formation of the Nazification of the German economy in the 1930s
Nationalization was particularly important in the early 1930s in Germany. The state took over a large industrial concern, large commercial banks, and other minor firms.
In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. It was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party. In addition, growing financial restrictions because of the cost of the rearmament programme provided additional motivations for privatization.
Does this mean that state enterprises are inherently fascist? No but by the same token they are not inherently socialist either.
The existence of state enterprises, by itself, has zero to do with whether a country is more or less socialistic and it is easily provable. I have lived in many countries, including a communist country, that have large use of state enterprises. I have in laws that work for those state enterprises.
In some cases a state enterprise will work for the benefit of the people and in other it serves as a conduit to skim off funds from the people for thieves in power. In Thailand the crooks in the previous regime stole money from one of the state enterprise banks and laundered the money through a Buddhist temple.
In Ukraine Putin insisted that a percentage of the pipeline profits from RosUkrEnergo' go to Semion Mogilevich.
Mogilevich is at the center of the Russian Mafia.
You can read more about him here
Mogilevich's nicknames include "Don Semyon" and "The Brainy Don" (because of his business acumen).[7] According to US diplomatic cables, he is said to control RosUkrEnergo, a company actively involved in Russia–Ukraine gas disputes, and a partner of Raiffeisen Bank.[8]
He now lives freely in Moscow, and has three children. He is most closely associated with the Solntsevskaya Bratva crime group. Political figures he has close alliances with include Yury Luzhkov, the former Mayor of Moscow, Dmytro Firtash and Leonid Derkach, former head of the Security Service of Ukraine.[9][10] Oleksandr Turchynov, who was designated as acting President of Ukraine in February 2014, appeared in court in 2010 for allegedly destroying files pertaining to Mogilevich.[11] Defector Alexander Litvinenko, shortly before his assassination, claimed that Mogilevich had a "good relationship" with Vladimir Putin since the 1990s.[12]
When you take a state enterprise and force it to pay a percentage of its revenues to mafia organizations and those profits are shared with the political elite, as has been happening with Russian state enterprises those enterprises simple become a conduit of corruption for the plutocracy.
In the United States we have lots of corporations who function as state enterprises but we don't use that terminology.
A few examples, Public Utilities, Airports, Community College Systems and Professional Sports Arenas and Stadiums.
Clearly community colleges are operated more for the benefit of the citizenry and don't benefit any particular contractor or group so would be more "socialist" than not.
City and community owned airports operate for the benefit of the public and the corporations that run the airlines that use the airport. They are really neutral in terms of serving a particular constituency and aren't intended to return profits to the government agency that runs them.
Professional Sports Arenas and Stadiums which are owned mostly by cities offer their facilities to professional teams whose owners are almost all billionaires. With the exception of the Green Bay Packers whose stock is owned by the community these state enterprises are subsidizing the cost of the business for a class of billionaires whose investment has a much higher ROI than any other industry average. These state enterprises are the antithesis of "socialism" but the assets are owned by the community.
The term "State Enterprise" covers a wide range of varying type of organizations and is used in all kinds of governments from Nazi Germany to Stalinist USSR and even in mixed systems like ours. Anyone who thinks that the number of state enterprises indicates how the basic capital formation or market forces in a particular country operate simply doesn't understand the nature of state enterprises or the fundamentals of economics.
It is clear that you think that the statistics showing how many state enterprises there are somehow correlates to "state ownership of the economy"
There is no such correlation. Singapore has very few state corporations, much less on a per capita basis than other developed countries. The government of Singapore owns 76.2% of land in Singapore. There simply is no correlation between the number of state enterprises that operate in that country and as has been pointed out in detail above simply having government ownership doesn't mean that the enterprise operates for the benefit of the people. In a very large percent of the cases state enterprises operate to advance the wealth of the plutocracy and while that is true even here Russia (along with North Korea and Myanmar) is where the plutocracy operates a monopoly on the benefit of state enterprises.
Time is limited and there has to be a basic minimum of grey matter to justify the time spent and that metric also doesn't apply here. You can own the sub thread with any further irrelevancies you wish to deposit, I won't bother to read it but anyone who has made it this far can judge where the facts and reason lay for themselves.
= new reply since forum marked as read
What it melts down into I haven't found out yet, but I'll keep you posted. 
