<p>Yes it does. According to  <a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_1718" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nove 2018</a> socialism is defined thusly;</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialized or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (Plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how.</p>
</blockquote>
<ol>
<li><p>Nove is widely considered to be  one of, if not the most, prominent scholar of soviet and socialist economic history (see <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/153303.pdf?seq=1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Thatcher 1995</a>).</p>
</li>
<li><p>Nove’s article is well researched and has a references to various academic sources.  Moreover, it does not rely on Hayek’s definition of socialism<sup>1</sup></p>
</li>
<li><p>Nove draws from wide variety of sources, focusing  on writings of socialists economist or intellectuals themselves (e.g Marx) and writings of well known economic historians (e.g Schumpeter<sup>2</sup>).</p>
</li>
<li><p>The Nove’s definition is included in the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (NPDE).</p>
<p>NPDE is a peer reviewed academic dictionary published by Palgrave Macmillan and online by Springer (both very reputable academic publishers).</p>
<p>NPDE lists  widely accepted explanations for various academic economic terms. As opposed to regular English dictionary, it does not include just definition itself, but provides <em>lengthy</em> context for the definition and various usages.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p><sub> 1. Although to my best knowledge Hayek did not had his own personal definition of socialism.  </sub></p>
<p><sub> 2. Most people nowadays recognize Schumpeter primarily for his work on Political Economy and Macroeconomics but he was also renown economic historian (See Laurence S. Moss (2013)
Joseph A. Schumpeter, Historian of Economics).</sub></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T01:00:54.640Z
I don't know, it is a little vague, but the [abstract for capitalism is even vaguer](https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_154-2). To get some clarity: so most countries are neither socialist nor capitalist, because majority of production is not done by the state but state production is present?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T01:02:04.497Z
Are there any present-day countries that are socialist by the NPDE definition?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T01:03:29.750Z
Finally: I didn't single out Hayek because he was Austrian or something, I just wanted more than a mere quote. Haven't heard of NPDE before, perhaps it's good enough.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T01:06:26.310Z
@Giskard 1. I disagree that the definition is vague. Rather it’s broad. Let me explain. When it comes to definitions of large macro scale systems it’s difficult to be specific. For example, definition of aggregate supply is whole production, that is highly non-specific but not necessarily vague. Of course, the definition above is bit more vague than definition of AS so it’s not 1:1 but I believe the point stands.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T01:12:09.350Z
2. Note the definitions states predominantly. Although this is little bit vague it’s clearly something >50% (I would argue based on context above 67% - in my understanding less than 33% would be considered capitalism, between 33 and 67 mixed economy and above socialism). In any case while it’s not as rigorous definition as definition in some mathematical theorem, it’s relatively rigorous to definitions of economic systems (I agree capitalism has less rigorous definition but that comes from its history - whereas socialism is term that was coined by socialists, capitalism was also coined
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T01:14:46.313Z
By socialists and clearly an author will have more incentive to rigorously define their own idea and less incentive to rigorously define the term for ideas of other scholars - not necessarily out of malice but simply because defining terms for ideas of other people requires you guessing what the other people believe.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T01:19:28.427Z
3. Yes I believe according to the definition above it’s possible to find examples of socialist countries that still exist (although note even if none existed it wouldn’t make the term less rigorous, there are no hunter gatherer economies in modern world - except perhaps doe some undiscovered tribes in Amazon yet the term hunter-gatherer can be rigorous and meaningful). For example, North Korea satisfies the definition because although there can be some private means of  production wast majority of the means of production are controlled by state. Another example could be Cuba I base that on
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T01:22:44.330Z
Wikipedia mentioning that 65% people are employed by the state (proxy for ownership of MoP), and that private sector consists in non-trivial portion of private coops - which do count for def. Although Cuba is clearly not as far as North Korea. There could be other modern real life examples that would satisfy the Nove’s definition of socialism. This is laborious to check, because private coops also count so I would have to do some extensive research, but in principle using the definition above with little extra legwork to statistically operationalize it every country in world can be categorized
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T01:25:49.580Z
Yes the number of socialist countries will be small nowadays (although in 20th century about 1/3 of all countries would probably qualify), but number of absolutist theocracies is small **today** (I can only think of Vatican) but that does not undermine definition of absolutist theocracy or it’s rigor. Even if Vatican would cease to exist it does not mean the academic term absolutist theocracy would loose its meaning (only utility perhaps outside historical inquiry)
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T11:19:31.150Z
Doesn't "cooperative enterprises" cover quite a wide spectrum, eg those jointly owned by their workers or by their customers, those serving very large or very small groups?
Adam Bailey
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T11:30:26.837Z
@AdamBailey I do not believe it’s wide spectrum. Since the definition talks about coops being used as way to socialize means of production it essentially means more narrowly worker coops. I believe retail/business cooperatives would not qualify since there we are talking about private entrepreneurs joining together. If the retail/business coop would qualify even corporation could be considered coop. This is economics and economic history article so I do not believe coop is used in legal sense as special type of legal entity.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T11:40:57.453Z
@AdamBailey PS I re-checked the article and the article says Mondragon coop in Spain is an example of the type of coop it talks about. I googled Mondragon and it’s a workers coop so I believe the definition only talks about workers coops.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T17:21:04.477Z
@1muflon1 I don't have a stake in this fight at all, but you cannot prove that the definition is narrow by pointing to the example, that is merely one example. (E.g.; the scarab is an insect. Are all insects beetles? Where, my example was a beetle, so yes, probably all insects fit into the narrow category...)
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T18:21:55.700Z
@Giskard I am also saying that based on a context of the article
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T18:25:34.440Z
Okay, I didn't now that, [your comment](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/58029/definition-of-socialism/58030?noredirect=1#comment96367_58030) has no info on this.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-03T19:59:45.043Z
2024-04-04T01:02:19.617Z
2024-04-04T01:02:19.617Z
1muflon1
<p>Socialism has clear and consistent definition in economics.</p>
<p>I think a good way to determine if there is a consistent definition of socialism in economics is to review multiple economic or educational sources and seeing if the definition is consistent.</p>
<p>Sherman, Howard J.; Zimbalist, Andrew (1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach. Harcourt College Pub. p. 7:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and run by the government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Rosser, Mariana V.; Rosser, J. Barkley (2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 53</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Socialism is an economic system characterised by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Badie, Bertrand; Berg-Schlosser, Dirk; Morlino, Leonardo, eds. (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">National Geographic</a> in economics section of its encyclopedia:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Socialism is a political and economic system wherein property and resources are owned in common or by the state.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://iep.utm.edu/socialis/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Socialism is both an economic system and an ideology (in the non-pejorative sense of that term). A socialist economy features social rather than private ownership of the means of production.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These may sometimes use different words but they all describe a system where means of production are owned primarily by collective society as opposed to private individuals. I believe this shows the definitions is consistent.</p>
<p>I also stopped after these sources, but there are more, the other answer cites Nove who also defines socialism as collective ownership of means of production.</p>
<p>The definitions are also clear, if that is what you mean by rigorous.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T17:17:37.297Z
You honestly find these definitions consistent? Sure, they use similar worlds, but they are quite different in details! 1st and 5th are in clear contradiction? Also, most of these sources are not from academic economics?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-05T11:17:48.087Z
@Giskard you can honestly in good faith say they are not consistent!? What is the contradiction between 1 and 5? Def1 says "Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and run by the government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups". Def2 says "A socialist economy features social rather than private ownership of the means of production." They are completely consistent. Let us explore that. First definition talks about pure socialism. Clearly that implies existence of less than pure socialist economy and would predominantly favor or
Lorenzo Pozzi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-05T11:18:03.917Z
use government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups. Next you are maybe point to def1 using phrase "government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups" and def2 using phrase "social rather than private ownership", but if you actually click on the source it defines later in full body of the text social ownership to be not just government ownership but also ownership through cooperatives or nonprofit groups provided the workers there have control. Clearly they are talking about the same consistent idea and only difference is in phrasing. I don't see how can you disagree if you read the sources.
Lorenzo Pozzi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-05T11:18:18.547Z
I have a feeling that you made this question with your mind already being firmly decided on this issue and now you just trying to nitpick any minor cosmetic difference that does not make the definition inconsistent. Even definition of natural science concepts like biosphere, nature or life will have small variation textbook to textbook, paper to paper. Applying such unreasonably high standard for definition to be consistent will immediately disqualify any definition in every field unless we are talking about mathematical models.
Lorenzo Pozzi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-05T11:35:23.077Z
You are entitled to your feelings! Right now I am just fact checking what you wrote. Do you think 1st and 5th are not contradictory?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-05T12:33:03.743Z
@Giskard can you please read my comment 1 and 2?
Lorenzo Pozzi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-05T13:52:25.713Z
Hi! Sorry, I was on a cell phone before and only saw the last comment. Having now read the other two: I wrote that 1 and 5 are in contradiction, not sure why you are writing about definition 2?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-05T13:52:32.043Z
I'll go into details. Def 1: "*Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and **run by the government** and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups*" Def 5: "*socialism is a political and economic system in which the means of production and property have public ownership and are **not controlled by the government**.*" So are the means of production controlled in part by the government or not?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-05T13:53:54.670Z
I do think there are other differences between the definitions where you can knitpick and IMO with good reason, but this is a clear contradiction?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-05T22:12:57.690Z
@Giskard sorry I miscounted, stupid of me, sorry also if I was too defensive. You are right it says not owned by government but I think it was likely a typo. I included that source because it was called Economic Times and it has very similar webdesign and even logo to Financial Times. However, upon deeper look into the website I discovered it is some indian website, and although there is nothing wrong with indian website in principle, it has a lot of articles with very weird English, it looks like the articles are google translated to English and contain syntax and grammar errors.
Lorenzo Pozzi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-05T22:13:16.597Z
As a consequence I removed it from my answer.
Lorenzo Pozzi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-05T22:44:25.537Z
Okay, maybe you want to read the others carefully as well, see if you still think they are saying the same thing, and not just use similar words?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T10:06:05.100Z
2024-04-05T22:13:36.187Z
2024-04-05T22:13:36.187Z
Lorenzo Pozzi
<p>Socialism is a range of ideologies and economic systems in which the government owns and manages most or all means of production. There are many different socialist ideologies, Marxist-Leninism (which was the dominant political ideology in Eastern Europe, much of Southeast Asia, the Soviet Union, and certain other places throughout much of the 20th century), being the most famous of them all.</p>
<p>Also the Nordic system is often called &quot;socialism&quot;, it's actually social democracy. Social democracy is still largely capitalistic, but adds higher levels of taxation and more generous welfare programs.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-01T03:46:50.593Z
2024-06-01T03:46:50.593Z
Aristocratic Jack
<p>Does the discipline of economics have an accepted rigorous definition of socialism?
<br> I.e. not something like &quot;<em>some economists would quote Hayek and say that so and so constitutes socialism</em>&quot; but an <strong>if and only if</strong> definition that most economists would agree on.</p>
<hr />
<p>Sister question to <a href="https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/19913/definition-of-capitalism">Definition of capitalism</a>.</p>
<p>Apropos of the <a href="https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/58013/1601">throwaway comment</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>real economic terms like free markets or socialism that are sometimes used as pejoratives but have actual pre-existing economic definitions, theories and literature behind them and originated in academia.</p>
</blockquote>

<definition>
Definition of socialism
Giskard
# Definition of socialism

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-04-03)

Does the discipline of economics have an accepted rigorous definition of socialism?
  
 I.e. not something like "*some economists would quote Hayek and say that so and so constitutes socialism*" but an **if and only if** definition that most economists would agree on.

---

Sister question to [Definition of capitalism](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/19913/definition-of-capitalism).

Apropos of the [throwaway comment](https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/58013/1601)

> real economic terms like free markets or socialism that are sometimes used as pejoratives but have actual pre-existing economic definitions, theories and literature behind them and originated in academia.

**Tags:** definition


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2024-04-03. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

Yes it does. According to [Nove 2018](https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_1718) socialism is defined thusly;

> A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialized or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (Plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how.

1. Nove is widely considered to be one of, if not the most, prominent scholar of soviet and socialist economic history (see [Thatcher 1995](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/153303.pdf?seq=1)).
2. Nove’s article is well researched and has a references to various academic sources. Moreover, it does not rely on Hayek’s definition of socialism1
3. Nove draws from wide variety of sources, focusing on writings of socialists economist or intellectuals themselves (e.g Marx) and writings of well known economic historians (e.g Schumpeter2).
4. The Nove’s definition is included in the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (NPDE).

   NPDE is a peer reviewed academic dictionary published by Palgrave Macmillan and online by Springer (both very reputable academic publishers).

   NPDE lists widely accepted explanations for various academic economic terms. As opposed to regular English dictionary, it does not include just definition itself, but provides *lengthy* context for the definition and various usages.

---

1. Although to my best knowledge Hayek did not had his own personal definition of socialism.

2. Most people nowadays recognize Schumpeter primarily for his work on Political Economy and Macroeconomics but he was also renown economic historian (See Laurence S. Moss (2013)
Joseph A. Schumpeter, Historian of Economics).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I don't know, it is a little vague, but the [abstract for capitalism is even vaguer](https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_154-2). To get some clarity: so most countries are neither socialist nor capitalist, because majority of production is not done by the state but state production is present?  
> **username_0**: Are there any present-day countries that are socialist by the NPDE definition?  
> **username_0**: Finally: I didn't single out Hayek because he was Austrian or something, I just wanted more than a mere quote. Haven't heard of NPDE before, perhaps it's good enough.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 1. I disagree that the definition is vague. Rather it’s broad. Let me explain. When it comes to definitions of large macro scale systems it’s difficult to be specific. For example, definition of aggregate supply is whole production, that is highly non-specific but not necessarily vague. Of course, the definition above is bit more vague than definition of AS so it’s not 1:1 but I believe the point stands.  
> **username_1**: 2. Note the definitions states predominantly. Although this is little bit vague it’s clearly something >50% (I would argue based on context above 67% - in my understanding less than 33% would be considered capitalism, between 33 and 67 mixed economy and above socialism). In any case while it’s not as rigorous definition as definition in some mathematical theorem, it’s relatively rigorous to definitions of economic systems (I agree capitalism has less rigorous definition but that comes from its history - whereas socialism is term that was coined by socialists, capitalism was also coined  
> **username_1**: By socialists and clearly an author will have more incentive to rigorously define their own idea and less incentive to rigorously define the term for ideas of other scholars - not necessarily out of malice but simply because defining terms for ideas of other people requires you guessing what the other people believe.  
> **username_1**: 3. Yes I believe according to the definition above it’s possible to find examples of socialist countries that still exist (although note even if none existed it wouldn’t make the term less rigorous, there are no hunter gatherer economies in modern world - except perhaps doe some undiscovered tribes in Amazon yet the term hunter-gatherer can be rigorous and meaningful). For example, North Korea satisfies the definition because although there can be some private means of  production wast majority of the means of production are controlled by state. Another example could be Cuba I base that on  
> **username_1**: Wikipedia mentioning that 65% people are employed by the state (proxy for ownership of MoP), and that private sector consists in non-trivial portion of private coops - which do count for def. Although Cuba is clearly not as far as North Korea. There could be other modern real life examples that would satisfy the Nove’s definition of socialism. This is laborious to check, because private coops also count so I would have to do some extensive research, but in principle using the definition above with little extra legwork to statistically operationalize it every country in world can be categorized  
> **username_1**: Yes the number of socialist countries will be small nowadays (although in 20th century about 1/3 of all countries would probably qualify), but number of absolutist theocracies is small **today** (I can only think of Vatican) but that does not undermine definition of absolutist theocracy or it’s rigor. Even if Vatican would cease to exist it does not mean the academic term absolutist theocracy would loose its meaning (only utility perhaps outside historical inquiry)  
> **username_2**: Doesn't "cooperative enterprises" cover quite a wide spectrum, eg those jointly owned by their workers or by their customers, those serving very large or very small groups?  
> **username_1**: @username_2 I do not believe it’s wide spectrum. Since the definition talks about coops being used as way to socialize means of production it essentially means more narrowly worker coops. I believe retail/business cooperatives would not qualify since there we are talking about private entrepreneurs joining together. If the retail/business coop would qualify even corporation could be considered coop. This is economics and economic history article so I do not believe coop is used in legal sense as special type of legal entity.  
> **username_1**: @username_2 PS I re-checked the article and the article says Mondragon coop in Spain is an example of the type of coop it talks about. I googled Mondragon and it’s a workers coop so I believe the definition only talks about workers coops.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I don't have a stake in this fight at all, but you cannot prove that the definition is narrow by pointing to the example, that is merely one example. (E.g.; the scarab is an insect. Are all insects beetles? Where, my example was a beetle, so yes, probably all insects fit into the narrow category...)  
> **username_1**: @username_0 I am also saying that based on a context of the article  
> **username_0**: Okay, I didn't now that, [your comment](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/58029/definition-of-socialism/58030?noredirect=1#comment96367_58030) has no info on this.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2024-04-04. Score: 1

Socialism has clear and consistent definition in economics.

I think a good way to determine if there is a consistent definition of socialism in economics is to review multiple economic or educational sources and seeing if the definition is consistent.

Sherman, Howard J.; Zimbalist, Andrew (1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach. Harcourt College Pub. p. 7:

> Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and run by the government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups

Rosser, Mariana V.; Rosser, J. Barkley (2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 53

> Socialism is an economic system characterised by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital

Badie, Bertrand; Berg-Schlosser, Dirk; Morlino, Leonardo, eds. (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science.

> Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

[National Geographic](https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism/) in economics section of its encyclopedia:

> Socialism is a political and economic system wherein property and resources are owned in common or by the state.

[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://iep.utm.edu/socialis/):

> Socialism is both an economic system and an ideology (in the non-pejorative sense of that term). A socialist economy features social rather than private ownership of the means of production.

These may sometimes use different words but they all describe a system where means of production are owned primarily by collective society as opposed to private individuals. I believe this shows the definitions is consistent.

I also stopped after these sources, but there are more, the other answer cites Nove who also defines socialism as collective ownership of means of production.

The definitions are also clear, if that is what you mean by rigorous.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: You honestly find these definitions consistent? Sure, they use similar worlds, but they are quite different in details! 1st and 5th are in clear contradiction? Also, most of these sources are not from academic economics?  
> **username_3**: @username_0 you can honestly in good faith say they are not consistent!? What is the contradiction between 1 and 5? Def1 says "Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and run by the government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups". Def2 says "A socialist economy features social rather than private ownership of the means of production." They are completely consistent. Let us explore that. First definition talks about pure socialism. Clearly that implies existence of less than pure socialist economy and would predominantly favor or  
> **username_3**: use government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups. Next you are maybe point to def1 using phrase "government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups" and def2 using phrase "social rather than private ownership", but if you actually click on the source it defines later in full body of the text social ownership to be not just government ownership but also ownership through cooperatives or nonprofit groups provided the workers there have control. Clearly they are talking about the same consistent idea and only difference is in phrasing. I don't see how can you disagree if you read the sources.  
> **username_3**: I have a feeling that you made this question with your mind already being firmly decided on this issue and now you just trying to nitpick any minor cosmetic difference that does not make the definition inconsistent. Even definition of natural science concepts like biosphere, nature or life will have small variation textbook to textbook, paper to paper. Applying such unreasonably high standard for definition to be consistent will immediately disqualify any definition in every field unless we are talking about mathematical models.  
> **username_0**: You are entitled to your feelings! Right now I am just fact checking what you wrote. Do you think 1st and 5th are not contradictory?  
> **username_3**: @username_0 can you please read my comment 1 and 2?  
> **username_0**: Hi! Sorry, I was on a cell phone before and only saw the last comment. Having now read the other two: I wrote that 1 and 5 are in contradiction, not sure why you are writing about definition 2?  
> **username_0**: I'll go into details. Def 1: "*Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and **run by the government** and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups*" Def 5: "*socialism is a political and economic system in which the means of production and property have public ownership and are **not controlled by the government**.*" So are the means of production controlled in part by the government or not?  
> **username_0**: I do think there are other differences between the definitions where you can knitpick and IMO with good reason, but this is a clear contradiction?  
> **username_3**: @username_0 sorry I miscounted, stupid of me, sorry also if I was too defensive. You are right it says not owned by government but I think it was likely a typo. I included that source because it was called Economic Times and it has very similar webdesign and even logo to Financial Times. However, upon deeper look into the website I discovered it is some indian website, and although there is nothing wrong with indian website in principle, it has a lot of articles with very weird English, it looks like the articles are google translated to English and contain syntax and grammar errors.  
> **username_3**: As a consequence I removed it from my answer.  
> **username_0**: Okay, maybe you want to read the others carefully as well, see if you still think they are saying the same thing, and not just use similar words?  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2024-06-01. Score: 0

Socialism is a range of ideologies and economic systems in which the government owns and manages most or all means of production. There are many different socialist ideologies, Marxist-Leninism (which was the dominant political ideology in Eastern Europe, much of Southeast Asia, the Soviet Union, and certain other places throughout much of the 20th century), being the most famous of them all.

Also the Nordic system is often called "socialism", it's actually social democracy. Social democracy is still largely capitalistic, but adds higher levels of taxation and more generous welfare programs.


---

