Not sure it’s a fair argument to exclude dozens of the wealthiest countries in the world because they own definition of socialism —that they practice— does not meet your imagined one.
The definition is not complicated: have key industrial assets, notably transport infrastructure, owned by public authorities.
> The definition is not complicated: have key industrial assets, notably transport infrastructure, owned by public authorities.
Many socialist ideologies reject the very idea of public authorities. Talking about them owned by the public would work better, but would exclude many other socialist ideologies.
E.g. Saint Simons original socialism involved a technocratic society where the actual key change was that people would be paid according to merit.
In Marxism too, that is the key defining aspect of socialism: Marxism sees the capitalist as not contributing work, but capital, and hence he's overpaid if measured by the merit of his work. (Marx was very clear on the distinction between socialism and communism as an end stage of a long period of development here: socialism would not involve full redistribution, but a process of redistribution by first levelling thing by paying people by merit, and then evening things out further by changing to pay based on need).
Public ownership in Marxism, is not a requirement per-se, but is seen as a consequence of the intent of giving everyone control over their own work and ensuring everyone is paid on merit.
This is the same in many other socialist ideologies, and hence you will also find distinctly socialist ideologies that accepts full private ownership, but instead e.g. relied on heavily progressive taxation as a means of reducing the difference.
You would be sort-of right that many socialist ideologies do share that characteristic, but it is not sufficient nor necessary in all instances.
> they own definition of socialism —that they practice—
> The definition is not complicated:
I probably should have been clearer, but that definition was explicitly the one adopted by the socialist parties who alternatively lead a majority of European countries (the “dozen of the wealthiest country in the world”).
There are other definitions of socialism, but I prefer to see how people practice it.
By that definition France is a socialist country. I suppose you could say that to some extent but France isn't what one usually thinks of when it comes to real-world socialism. I think socialists in particular will argue against that notion.
Even worse though: Most totalitarian countries fit that description, too.
> Even worse though: Most totalitarian countries fit that description, too.
Consider that Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto spent a whole chapter tearing into other socialist ideologies, ranging from ideologies they saw as reactionary and anti-democratic and even feudal, to utopian systems that were basically anarchist.
Socialist ideologies have historically spanned the spectrum from extreme libertarianism (the term libertarian was first used for a political system by a French anarcho-communist that was so anti-authority he criticised Proudhon - a prominent early anarchist - for not going far enough) to systems that basically argued for technocratic feudal systems with welfare.
Using the term without specifying more is meaningless if you are talking about a specific ideology or system rather than generally about systems with certain shared characteristics.
For the record, though, I agree with you that the definition in the comment you reply to doesn't make sense - it would exclude many prominent socialist ideologies.
I think many American Republicans would consider France to be socialist.
And would view many other countries as socialist, if they have things like national medical insurance and free college tuition. Except China. China for some reason is viewed as comfortably capitalist, despite the pictures of Chairman Mao on the currency and at Tienanmen Square. And except Russia, whose authoritarianism is admired.
Talking perception here, not reality. The perception of people who used to be a marginal group of extremists but now have many people in positions of Governor, house of representatives, etc.
And unfortunately they now have a real shot at the White House in the personage of their tribal Duce (a pathological egomaniac whose politics are unclear and span all ends of the spectrum within any given time period).
> China for some reason is viewed as comfortably capitalist
For the purposes of western companies with ties to China, they have capitalism - after all, allowing child labor in sweat shops is very capitalistic.
On the other hand the state controls a majority of enterprise assets even though the number of enterprises fully owned by the state is around 30%. And they also impose their will on privately owned companies, with the market not being free.
Indirectly it kind of is. The Government, owned by the people determines whether some companies continue to produce, or fail. Under natural capitalism Amtrak would have died years ago.
if you define success in terms of wealth (which is a decent way to do it for most people). But these 'wealthiest countries' are doing some pretty scary stuff in the world, and on massive scales which threaten the potential for future generations to even inhabit the planet comfortably without massive restrictions and compromises.
The definition is not complicated: have key industrial assets, notably transport infrastructure, owned by public authorities.