In another thread, polycarp2 made this comment regarding socialism:
Quote "polycarp2":U.S. liberals sometimes support elements of a social democracy. They never, ever support socialism. No country ever has.... given its historical definition.
It's much easier to discredit what it isn't...than to discredit what it is.
It seems evident that there is some disagreement as to exactly what socialism is and is not. I have always thought of socialism in the way that Austro-Libertarian described it: "the system of production where the means of production are under social control," although I would probably add the word coercive to distinguish state socialism from voluntary arrangements such as families, worker-owned firms, and monasteries. That would make my definition more like, "the system of production where the means of production are under coercive social control."
I'm not particularly thrilled with that definition, as it might also include corporatism and fascism as well (where corporations own the means of production, but they are controlled by the government.)