When is a country considered to be socialist??

OK, know that this is probably asking a lot, but serious answers only please. and let's try to be constructive rather than destructive, and not to insult each other.

I'm not asking if socialism is good or bad, or possible or even if it is desirable. So please don't try to answer those questions.

How far down the path to socialism does a country need to go towards socialism before it's considered socialist?

Can a country be considered socialist simply because it has several socialist policies in place or does it need to convert its entire economy to socialism?

For example, is a universal minimum income sufficient to make a country socialist on its own?

What about state ownership, could a country be considered socialist if the state owned essential services like water and power but allowed private companies to compete with them in a free market? Or would competition need to be stopped and these services be exclusive to the state?

What about free education, would all education have to be 100% free 100% of the time to 100% of the people, or could it bee free to low income families and heavily subsidized for everyone else?

For a real world example the main opposition party in the United Kingdom considers itself to be a socialist party and it is pledging free college education, and to nationalize the rail networks. But they will allow free market competition (for example, anybody can set up a bus company to compete with the trains) and they are only proposing to nationalize the largest utility companies. If they did this would that make the United Kingdom a socialist country, or would they need to go even further?

a reply to: AaarghZombies

To some people even having one or two social programs that are paid for by taxes are seen as a full blown socialist state.

For a nation to be socialist the means of production need to be heavily influenced by the working class. And then it slowly snow balls from there into other aspects of society.

This means capitalist ventures are taken on by say a co op and wealth isnt concentrated in just a few its spread out to all the workers, the concentration of wealth is then viewed as in the nation as a whole eventually through fair taxation. Its bottom up economics not the other way around basically.

a reply to: strongfp

To some people even having one or two social programs that are paid for by taxes are seen as a full blown socialist state.

Because it is.

Lets take the big two. Social security and medicare.

Forced taxation of both employee, and employer.

Doesn't cover the benefits received.

New taxes are created like the Alterantive minimum tax.

More new taxes are created like the medicare capital gains surtax.

Keeping up ?

Quadruple taxation.

On top of printing fiat currency.

On top of borrowing from foreign countries like China.

For safety nets, and that 'awesome' free healthcare where it's premium is deducted from the social security monthly stipend.

SOCIALISM in Action.

Robbing every Peter to pay Paul.

To me socialism isn't just about takeover of business, it is about societal control over the individual, ostensibly for the good of society to create equality of outcome for all.

To me communism is when a country has full control of all businesses and we know how that works out, it doesn't, which is why even China now allows some private business.

To me Socialism is:

When a country controls the health of all of its citizens and decides what healthcare they can and can not receive, and which citizens are worth spending the money on to cure. (normally greatly limiting the curative care for the elderly, the very young and the handicapped).

When a country controls education from cradle to PhD. Control the mind, control the people, control the society.

When a country takes measures to control individual choices (i.e. through mandatory testing from an early age to ensure only the very brightest get to go to University) and limit them to create equality of outcome for all.

When a country punishes people (socially or judicially) for breaking the societal norms of the day (not actual "crimes") but speech and thought "crimes".

I know the "official definition" is not what I described. But to me, when a society puts deep controls on the social lives of people and attempts to regulate social lives in an attempt to create equality for all and equality of outcome for all, that is socialism.

Read "The Giver", that book describes the perfect socialist utopia, it is a children's book, but has won many awards and is well worth reading as the quintessential ideal of a perfect liberal utopia. (The movie is NOT representative of the book) This is the type of society that I believe today's socialists are attempting to create to make all things and all people equal where no one is unhappy, everyone has equal consumer goods, and there is no prejudice or bigotry. A perfect social life for all - what socialism is to me.

originally posted by: strongfp
To some people even having one or two social programs that are paid for by taxes are seen as a full blown socialist state.

What if a country had:

• Publicly funded K-12 education
  
• Publicly funded policing
  
• Publicly funded fire fighting in most cases
  
• Publicly funded infrastructure maintenance (roads/highways/bridges/ports)
  
• Publicly funded transportation (airports/mass transit)

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: strongfp
To some people even having one or two social programs that are paid for by taxes are seen as a full blown socialist state.

What if a country had:

• Publicly funded K-12 education
  
• Publicly funded policing
  
• Publicly funded fire fighting in most cases
  
• Publicly funded infrastructure maintenance (roads/highways/bridges/ports)
  
• Publicly funded transportation (airports/mass transit)

These are the jobs of ALL governments. This is what people pay taxes for. These are not socialist programs at all, they are the responsibility of government, especially local government - and without them no government would be worth having at all.

These things are NOT socialist, nor are they socialist programs.

This is what socialist point to as socialist programs to say that socialism is necessary and must be enacted in every country. This is not true at all, these are basic services of ALL forms of government and without them there is no government, just a rat hole for taxes.

a reply to: AaarghZombies
I would not call a country socialist unless it was governed by a socialist party with an unbreakable grip on power. Just as the Communist countries would regard themselves as socialist states, because their ruling party could not lose elections.
A few policies on their own would not qualify. As an historical example, the Imperial German government under Bismarck introduced a lot of laws which could be called socialist, but Bismarck was just outflanking the socialists; he wasn't a socialist himself, and Imperial Germany wasn't a socialist country.

a reply to: neo96

You're assuming capitalism and the current economic plans are still in place...

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: neo96

You're assuming capitalism and the current economic plans are still in place...

There's no assumption.

Both Social Security and Medicare tell the end users to have something else to supplement them both.

Social security isn't meant as a persons sole means of income.

Medicare isn't meant to be a persons only health insurance.

So there's literally no point in having either other than just forced taxation, and saddling us with debt we shouldn't be.

originally posted by: The2Billies
These are not socialist programs at all...

They are 100% socialist. You take money from citizens and disburse those funds for social benefits.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

As a non American there at not many, I guess most Americans will think as soon as someone is being given money from the state then it is socialist. In my own opinion most Americans despise helping each other out, its my money screw my neighbour

originally posted by: neo96


Robbing every Peter to pay Paul.

No one is robbing anyone, we are helping the less fortunate, maybe its an attitude towards each other that other countries seem to embrace where as America seems to be all about the individual, with little to no thought for your neighbour and their lives, just my opinion of course. Heaven forbid one day life throws you into the gutter and you have to rely on someone elses generosity, if my earning being taxed provide for someone less fortunate then I have zero issue with that, all I ask is that politicians and policies are far more transparent, dont let MPs steal from it for second homes and tax breaks.

After all we are ALL human and we should be onside with each other, my neighbour is my friend, my work collegue is my equal, there is plenty of money (which is just paper by the way) to go round, dont chase the dream if it means standing on the shoulders of others, morales are free, manners should come easily.

Anyone born in the developed world has been born into privelige, imagine being born in a country where there is no clean water, then you will see true community, people walking miles to bring water back to the village, hell if someone collapses on a high street in the UK the bystander effect takes over, money seems to bring more division than unity. If my money makes you happy take it all, life to me is not about $$££. I dont give to recieve, we all end up 6 feet under as worm food, its the relationships you make along the way that define you.

How Psychology Explains the Bystander Effect

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: strongfp
To some people even having one or two social programs that are paid for by taxes are seen as a full blown socialist state.

What if a country had:

• Publicly funded K-12 education
  
• Publicly funded policing
  
• Publicly funded fire fighting in most cases
  
• Publicly funded infrastructure maintenance (roads/highways/bridges/ports)
  
• Publicly funded transportation (airports/mass transit)

And guess what, every one of those programs are screwed up big time, save the emergency services in my opinion, but even those two could be argued to suck as well.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

I totally agree, which was my point. People like to pretend we don't already have a host of socialist programs here in the United States, we do.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yep, our current crop of Socialist programs is the reason why I don’t want government run Healthcare.

I’d also suggest to those that support free college to reevaluate their stance because it will just ruin the worth of the degree while at the same time cause a tremendous burden on the taxpayers.

When is a country considered to be socialist??

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics = Communist Russia
National Socialist German Workers' Party = Nazi Germany

There are people here who do not consider those as socialist countries, even though that is what they called themselves.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

With the logic of having publicly funded programs them basicslly every nation on planet earth is socialist. Which they arent.

The libertarian wet dream is just as much of s pipe dream as a full on socialist one.

When they run out of other folks money.

a reply to: neo96

OP asked about how can you define a socialist state. Having programs paid for by peoples taxes isnt socialism. They are social programs that the public uses and are a necessity to a working nation.

Again op was asking a hypothetical question, not how to make the us a socialist state.

Do the workers own the means of production? No? Not socialist.
It really does boil down to that simplicity.
We are a capitalist state top to bottom, as are both parties.
No need for another socialist doom-porn freak out.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: strongfp

To some people even having one or two social programs that are paid for by taxes are seen as a full blown socialist state.

Because it is.

Lets take the big two. Social security and medicare.

Forced taxation of both employee, and employer.

Doesn't cover the benefits received.

New taxes are created like the Alterantive minimum tax.

More new taxes are created like the medicare capital gains surtax.

Keeping up ?

Quadruple taxation.

On top of printing fiat currency.

On top of borrowing from foreign countries like China.

For safety nets, and that 'awesome' free healthcare where it's premium is deducted from the social security monthly stipend.

SOCIALISM in Action.

Robbing every Peter to pay Paul.

But thats just taxation due to government overspend. Capitalist societies do that too. I dont think that this has anything to do with socialism, and can we really say that someone is being robbed when they can claim the amount back in goods and services?

For example, In France you pay out more when you are young but you can claim it back as a pension when you are older. They gave a crazy good system for supporting seniors, some people can even retire at 50.