1. An economic system where the means of production, distribution and exchange is determined by the state/public sector in some form. Can be centralised, decentralised, democratic or undemocratic.

2. Description of a left-wing political position between social democracy (general acceptance of the market economy but thinks the public sector has a vital role in proividing some goods and services) and communism (marxism). Agrees in the state determining the means of production, distribution and exchange but wants to bring that about peacefully and democratically.

3. General description of the left: the belief that individuals should be judged on how they treat other people rather than on their job/race/sexuality, that people should have equality of opportunity, that in principle wealth should be distributed fairly to everyone who works rather than the minority who own most of the economy and most of the wealth and that an economy owned by a few individuals without a strong public sector to balance that is undemocratic and unjust.

4. A stage in history defined by Marx's theories as coming after capitlalism and before communism where the means of production is owned by the state and run in the interests of the proletariat.

5. A label used by various Marxist-Leninist dictatorships with state-run economies in the 20th Century to justify their totalitarianism.

A socio-economic system where every worker-citizen is "equal." A decent theory on paper, but difficult to implement in the "real world."

My take: all approaches to governing people lay on a spectrum and each is interdependent with the economics of that society. Because the terms cover widths on that spectrum, and are not able to be pigeon-holed, no one conveneient definition of a term such as socialism, and, hence, no one convenient dismissal, is acceptable to a thinking person.

Socialism has many current forms, some more invested in governmental "control" and involvement (western European govenrments) ostensibly stemming from the belief that people will not pay for that from which they do not receive immediate benefit; i.e., roads, health care, the military (need taxes to pay for these things). Yes, the US is a socialist state as well, as it governs some aspects of production, some aspects of capital disbursement (in the form of the Fed, quasi-governenmental instititutions such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, special US-backed corporate loans ala Chrysler in the 80s), health care and wealth distribution (taxes). We just do it to less of an extent that some claimed "socialist" states.

If there is anything I would like people to undersdtand, it would be that socialism is not a bad word, no more so tham "dog", and that your unbiased assessment, as opposed to your knee-jerk dismissal, is warranted to truly understand and judge this concept.

A word many would do well to look up in an actual FUCKING dictionary.

NOT Communism.

Socialism can be seen in many Western European countries working very well.

It involves being taxed proportionally to how much you earn, a free, or semi-subsidised health service, a minimum wage, decent social security and many many other benefits to society.

confused with communism, which doesn't work, this however can work very well with a mix of capitalism and democracy, it is a more equal economic system where the poor can become rich, whenever this comes up in a conversation someone eventually says it didn't work in russia

(n.)
A political philosophy based on the belief that some or all businesses should be run solely for the benefit of the people using them.

Socialism and Communism are based on similar principles. Socialism does not require that a socialized industry be legally owned by the government, but if that were the case it could still be considered socialism. In the strictest sense, Communism prohibits private ownership of money, business, or goods, while Socialism may or may not on a case by case basis. The two can therefore resemble each other and it can be hard to distinguish one from the other.

first off lets get this straight, socialism is NOT facism, or communism. anyone who says that is just ignorant. Nazis were facists and pretended to be socialists in order to get more support, same with the Soviets and communism. thats the only connection they have. dont critisize something you know nothing about.

now the real definition: socialism supports economic controls but allows for some accumulation of wealth. social restrictions are signifigantly weaker, hence the name socialism.
facism is completely the opposite, with lax economic controls, and strict social rules including that all residents must be completely loyal to the ruling party, and must never speak out.

An economic system based on public ownership of the means of production. The most overt examples of public or common ownership exist in strict communist societies. Small scale communes exist within which people own all physical assets commonly. Some communes even have common ownership of some clothing. Strict communism requires income equality, and is sometimes referred to as economic democracy.

Common ownership of the means of production implies that production is directed by 'society' rather than by entrepreneurs. Socialists tend to promote democratic government as the representative of society in directing production. Large scale production cannot be planned through direct democratic vote, and requires that bureaucrats and officials decide many issues in production.

Critics of socialism claim that socialism fails to match the performance of capitalism for three reasons. First the equalization of incomes eliminates the incentive to innovate and work hard. Second, bureaucrats and high officials do not posses the informational required to direct production in a complex society. Market prices are needed to solve the informational problems of directing production, and socialism will at best have pseudo-prices. The absence of financial markets is a major problem with socialism. Third, socialism tends to degenerate into oppressive dictatorship. The incentive, informational, and political problems of socialism are inescapable.

Many want socialism for ideological reasons. Egalitarian ethics drive the socialist movement. Marxists claim that capitalism is exploitative. Socialism is indefensible in terms of economic efficiency and natural rights ethics. Socialists envision a better world, but their dreams are unrealizable.

The political system that centers on the needs of the society as a whole. Sometimes used as an alternative name for communism or as a derogatory term for opponents of capitalism. In fact it is a very wide term that can accomodate quite diverse ideologies.