But how can we even have a discussion about it then? If we can't distinguish, then we can't say that Denmark is not a socialist country, that would be lying, yet the former primeminister of Denmark did that, so i simply don't understand it.

@Keinicke, a better question might be should we be having a discussion about it? Is it relevant if the whole country is "socialist" or "capitalist" or should the discussion be "what is our policy towards <education/policing/care of the elderly>" forget the top level label and ask questions about real things.

@Keinicke depends on what you mean by conversation. In the US for example politics has become a spectator sport for people who don't like sports. They even have colors: Red v. Blue. "Socialism" and "Capitalism" are team slogans, and believe me we have plenty of conversations about them in that context. In terms of conversations about actual policy though, we simply talk about which mix or point of balance is more desirable and why: there are plenty of things that the market does not provide due to collective action problems or might provide that we consider it immoral to let it.

@Keinicke That's how the term "capitalism" appeared in the first place. If you look at beginnings of modern socialism, you'll find a lot of people who were very interested in making the discussion as confusing as possible, constantly inventing new meanings for words and using different meanings at different times (even in the same context). It's really little more than a sport for people who think themselves more intellectually inclined; as soon as anybody actually tries to reach an agreement or anything, terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" are dropped, because they're worse than useless.

@Keinicke Given that even things that used to be well defined often degenerate to the point of uselessness (especially in "common parlance"), it shouldn't be surprising that something that was deliberately designed to be confusing and pointless is confusing and pointless. Why do people still use them? Because people don't always want to resolve issues. Sometimes they're very happy with pointlessly arguing the same points but never coming to an agreement, because they're using different names for the same things and vice versa :)

I think there are more than a few people who think the state should have no property and produce nothing.

@user253751 much like the people who think the state should own everything, those people are long on dogma and short on concrete plans for how that would work in practice.

@JaredSmith but I don't think they're a tiny ignorable minority.

@user253751 allow me to be more precise: just like Communists who want to talk all big in front of their Communist buddies about the State owning everything, a lot of people say they want the State to own absolutely nothing when they have no real skin in the game (just cheap talk). But when push comes to shove they're actually ok with the State handling ownership of lots of stuff (e.g. the military). True believers seem rare.

Perhaps it is worth asking the dual question: if pure capitalism or pure socialism can exist at all.

@James IDK, it seems to me like the relevant questions are 1. Would pure socialism/capitalism be better than the more common mixture of the two and if so why? And 2. Where in practice is a good balance point for public vs. private ownership?

@JaredSmith The first question can only be asked if it is possible for them to exist. Otherwise we might as well be asking who would win in a fight between a unicorn and a wyvern. I suspect there is a yin and yang relationship between them and the benefits of one or the other only exist while in opposition. Some of the freedoms and benefits offered by the capitalist West receded with the crushing of collective action and the fainting spectre of the Soviet Union. In truth many of them only existed since WW2 when that threat seemed greatest. Before then, capitalism didn't benefit many.

State-run public services are not identical with "the means of production". Therefore, what you have in Denmark is, by your definition, not a mix of socialism and capitalism, but capitalism with state-provided services and sectors in which the state has a monpoly. This is called a "mixed economy" or a "social market economy".

@henning--reinstateMonica who owns the roads in Denmark? Does the production of goods rely on roads? Who owns the railways? Are those railways used in the production of goods? The government clearly owns some of the means of production. Mixed economies are by definition a combination of private ownership/production and government ownership/control over production.

"True Libertarians" want nothing from the state except a strong police force to protect them from their slaves.

@Luaan I definitely see your point and it makes it hard to discuss for "regular" people who doesn't have to come to an agreement i think.

@mbrig The problem is, you both definitely have a point here. Obviously the roads and railroads are alpha and omega for private production, but it might be cheaper for the companies to use theses instead of privately owned roads and railroads, so in that sense the government actually enables the private production.

@Keinicke It shouldn't be forgotten that both roads and railroads were generally built by private companies and with private investments. Just because most railways are owned by the state these days doesn't mean that's the only way - most of those were simply stolen from their owners for purposes like "state security" or reclaimed by the government after the company that owned them went bankrupt (usually due to the simple fact that the railroad was more or less useless, and government subsidies kept it running).

@PatriciaShanahan It's not so much that it's poorly defined as that a lot of people don't know what the definition is. :) Apparently this is not unique to the U.S., given the existence of this question.

@Luaan The usual process is that the state pays generously to bailout and nationalise failing private property. If there is any stealing involved, it is the other way round.

Few "socialists" actually believe that all property should be held in common. [citation needed]

@iono - Not sure if you're serious, but here goes... forbes.com/sites/davidprosser/2019/09/27/… washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy#Private_secto‌​r workers.org/2008/us/socialism_1106 And so on and so on... (By the way, I'm not endorsing these views. Just giving you citations for the claim you disputed.)

@jcsahnwaldtsaysGoFundMonica None of those citations support the claim that few "socialists" actually believe that all property should be held in common. The Forbes and workers.org articles don't even claim that, let alone back it up with evidence. The reason I asked for evidence is that the vast, vast majority of self-described "socialists" I know personally, have read, or know about do want to abolish private ownership of the means of production, and consider that a fundamental, definitional property of what the term "socialism" should mean.

@iono - The Forbes piece article shows Corbyn (often considered a socialist / Marxist) doesn't believe all property (small businesses, in particular) should be held in common. The workers.org article argues that "personal property ... is a lot safer under socialism than under capitalism".

@iono - In your first comment you wrote "all property", now you're talking about "private ownership of the means of production". Two very different things. (Maybe some communists or anarchists want to abolish all private / personal property, but even that is debatable, and socialists certainly don't.)

@James Don't be silly. I'm not saying the private businesses have any right to that money, quite the opposite. There should be no bailout. As far as I'm concerned, they're taking stolen money for their own benefit. But that doesn't mean that the blame lays squarely on the entrepreneurs. And it's a systematic problem - start doing this as a government, and it becomes impossible to do business any other way. We're back from free trade to political power; the successfull businesses are the ones that have the most political influence, which is inherently involuntary. That's a bad thing.

@Luaan You have to bailout activity which has become essential to the economy. Free trade has always relied on political activity to make it happen. Both to crush opposition and to provide infrastructure that the market wouldn't provide.

@James You do that, you reap the storm. It happens often, yes. And the consequences are always the same, and quite inevitable - in ancient times as it is today. It's always the trade of a bit of short-term improvement for some at the cost of mounting costs over time for everyone, destruction of free trade and freedom in general etc, etc, etc. If something is truly essential to the economy, it wouldn't need bailouts. Indeed, the bailouts probably in many cases happened because the government tried to impose price controls, to "help" the people or the economy (just like they keep doing today).

@James Free trade requires the rule of law. It is inseparable from governments of some kind or other (ideally, a lot of small, decentralized governments with arbitrary boundaries). But that's the only thing it needs. Everything else does harm. Subsidies are just as bad as regulations and uneven taxation. In fact, you even admit that - but then you act as if that was the desirable state, and then claim it's the problem with free trade! In a survey, people will tell you loads about what they "want". But that's a wishlist. What they really want is what they're willing to spend resources on.

@Luaan What are small, decentralized governments with arbitrary boundaries? Warring city states? Free trade is a myth, once any market participant gains power, they will bend the market to their will in a quest to accumulate it all. The role of the government is to stop that from happening, but they get caught up in their own quest for power. People can only spend resources they have on what's on offer, not what meets their wants or needs if either are lacking.

@James The funny thing is, you keep saying the same thing. Political power is bad. Violence is bad. And yet your final answer is always "therefore we need more political power and more violence". As for free trade being a myth... you're assuming that bigger is always better - both in governments and in trade. But in reality, there's an optimal size for everything - something that depends on environment, technology, labour force etc. At some point, it becomes easy for someone else to do better. The only harmful monopolies that lasted were granted by political power. It requires violence.

@iono From his manifesto policies, stated personal views, and (far more importantly) his voting history, Corbyn appears to be demonstrably much more akin to a Democratic Socialist than a Social Democrat. As you indicate, "talk is cheap". But, like him or loathe him, Corbyn's actions generally seem to line up with his words - which is more than you can say for many politicians.

@Luaan I've said no such thing. Free trade is not a magic bullet and cannot be treated separately from power dynamics in the real world.

@Chronocidal "democratic socialists" are (by the classic & more useful definition) not just capitalists with very socialistic policies; they're socialists who want to arrive at full socialism through "democratic" (here meaning "within the capitalist electoral and legal system") means. These are very, very often conflated, because of the nature of electoralism as being a conservatising force. This is why many of the biggest self-described demsoc organisations/publications such as the DSA, Jacobin and Momentum actually have a significant proportion of social democrats and reformists within them

@Chronocidal re: Corbyn specifically, I'd direct you to his recent long Facebook post on not being "anti-business". Socialism is inherently anti-business because private (read: autocratic, and therefore exploitative) ownership of the means of production is the entire problem socialism stands as a solution to. "Business" means private ownership of the MoP; you can't have employers and thus appropriation of surplus value without private ownership. This includes co-ops and other locally-democratic/globally-autocratic reforms to private property. Corbyn doesn't want to democratise everything.

@James Have I ever said that it can be? You seem to think I'm some kind of an anarcho-capitalist or something. Free trade needs to be part of a structure that maintains free trade. Freer trade means richer people, all over the world. Every limitation on free trade must be made on very strong arguments - it will do great damage, and the reward must be more than proportionate to be worth it (especially if you consider that every such policy tends to feed the inclination to make more such policies). Most of the limitations on free trade today are not there for some "greater good". That's bad.

@iono Socialism is not solely state ownership of the means of production: Coöperatives are a form of socially-owned business practice, as are certain types of collective ownership. You appear to be heavily focussed on the types of socialism that are most commonly depicted the media (because they are different from was "normal" looks like, and make for a good contrast in books and films, et cetera), and somewhat unaware of other socialist models (i.e. the ones that aren't "anti-business".) The beans for your morning coffee most likely came from a socially-owned coöperative business.

@Luaan In the comments on the question, someone stated that Europe requires all train services to have equal access to the tracks - i.e. the company that built the tracks isn't allowed to only run their own trains on the tracks (I assume this applies only to the long-distance train network, not airport baggage systems for example). I think this is an example of a limitation on free trade (you can't build railways and run them however you want) which actually promotes free trade (anyone can decide to run a train service without building their own railways). Agree or disagree?

@user253751 Mostly neutral. It still has potential for abuse, but unless someone starts systematically abusing the system and adding new laws (as is happening in my country - recently, a law has said that a train ticket from one company must also be valid for all the other companies, which is ridiculous), it's fine. Interestingly, during the great rail expansion era in the US, the train companies had this too. It's great business for the owner of the railroad - you don't really need to encourage it. Monopolistic behaviour is rarely rewarded on the market; you're usually losing money somewhere.

@Luaan In some cities, there is a law that public transport tickets must be valid for all public transport, and revenue is split between them based on usage. As a citizen this is absolutely brilliant especially if you have a monthly ticket allowing unlimited travel within the city. I would not be surprised if they make more money as a result of this law, because of increased usage, than it costs to administer the scheme. I don't know if it could work for long-distance though. Obviously, the fare structure cannot be decided by any one transport company.

@Luaan I don't believe that monopolistic behaviour is rarely rewarded. If you have a monopoly anyway, then you should set your price to the price that maximizes profit. If you have competition, you should set it to your costs plus a reasonable profit (interpretation of "reasonable" may be adjusted based on the competition). And sometimes, monopolies arise naturally - the reasons why are not relevant in this comment. With railroads, the first company would get to lay railroads, and the second company would have to bridge over / tunnel under all the first company's railroads, which is crazy.

@user253751 The main problem is that it removes much of the competition between the transport companies. Again, socialism isn't bad for capitalists. It's bad for consumers. Capitalists love as much socialism as they can get, until you get to the point where they lose their property. As for the monopoly part, you're assuming the monopoly is unchallengeable. That usually means a state monopoly, which is bad. If you have a natural rail monopoly, you can make a profit from others using your rail - you get less risk and effort than providing the trains and schedules as well.

@user253751 At the same time, the competitors use your rail even though it's expensive, because it's still cheaper and less risky than building their own rail. This essentially means there's no harm to the monopoly (and a monopoly that isn't harmful...). Most of the world's railroads started with free competition; you're severely underestimating how little natural monopoly there is in railroads. Mind, it also has disadvantages for customers, like having twenty different railroad stations in the same city, but whether that's a good or bad thing depends on subjective values of the customers.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@Chronocidal Socialism is not ("solely" or otherwise) about "state ownership" of the MoP. Socialism is where the working class - the class as a whole, i.e. the entire society - control the MoP. Cooperatives are not "socially-owned"; they're worker-owned, but only by the specific workers inside of that business. They're certainly "collective ownership", but then so is shareholding in private businesses. I'm very aware of other ideologies which call themselves "socialist" while retaining private property. I think it's meaningfully, vitally dishonest and ahistorical to call them "socialism".

@Chronocidal You should read some summaries of the Marxist model of capitalism to understand why business-friendly "socialism" completely misses the point. Alex Callinicos has a great book which is free online called "The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx"; it does a good job summarising the logic of Capital (which is the basis of Marxism, and can be a difficult read). Rather than condescend to me, you should read Luxemburg and Lenin on the abject dishonesty and failure of the Kautskyite "socialism" you're espousing, which has historically betrayed or failed the working class endlessly.

@iono You keep quoting all these "modern re-imaginings" of socialism, and ignoring the older works by which it should be defined - such as the writings of Abu Dharr al-Ghifari al-Kinani circa 640AD. As I have said, you appear to be completely fixated on your "One True Definition", and are ignoring everything that demonstrates it to be a small - and radicalised - subset. As such, I shall leave you to your stubbornness.

@Chronocidal Kautskyite / revisionist "socialism" isn't a bad definition because it's modern or a "re-imagining" (your words, not sure why you put them in quotes); it's bad because it loses the critically important ideas about society, democracy and how capitalism is inherently abusive which made the term "socialism" so historically significant and popular to begin with. Please, I'm begging you to actually read anything on the subject before you pontificate in public in unbearably smarmy prose.