Public goods can be provisioned without the government owning the means of production. "Free college" and "free healthcare" proposals typically consist of the government paying for things on behalf of the consumer, not the federal government owning every college and hospital in America.

I didn't know that most industrialized countries (which provide some form of free healthcare and free education) are socialist countries. Please call Theresa May and tell her that she leads a socialist government. :-)

Why is free college socialism and free K-12 school not? Hmm....

In the US (or everywhere?) most of the "means of producing" military safety are owned by the government

This answer is fallacious. Jazz is defined as music characterized by polyphony, syncopation, and improvization. Beethoven's music contains these elements, therefore Beethoven is a jazz composer. Silly.

@MartinSchröder Only half-socialist: the UK has free healthcare but not free university education.

Also, that duckduckgo link just gives the top hit from a page listing several different dictionary definitions of socialism. That isn't "the" definition of socialism — it is a definition.

@HagenvonEitzen Yes government produced military is socialist. There are alternatives.

@Geobits Yes free K-12 is socialist. There are alternatives.

@Joe That is a semantic weasel argument. If someone cuts your brake lines and you drive over a cliff, they didn't technically murder you. In a system where a government is the sole buyer (monopsony) and can print money out of thin air, no clinic or college could reasonably compete without taking government money (crowding out) or disobey while taking government money. The government is effectively de facto owner. The same happens with monopsony private prisons. Quality suffers when there is no actual choice or competition.

The is a great, concise, technically correct answer. I was thinking about giving an answer similar to this one, further expanding on definitions and perspectives... but given the comments and the points this answer got, I can see that it is likely to end like this one regardless of how much effort I invest. Calling Europe "socialist" is like pointing out the naked king - "we call it invisible suit!"

@Joe The federal government doesn't have to own colleges for them to be socialist. Indeed, the vast majority of universities in the United States are owned by the government, it just happens to be the state governments. And the same is true for K-12 schools. Yes, that's socialism by definition.

@barbecue Your comment is fallacious. Saying that A is B because they share some common attributes is indeed a fallacy. Saying that A is B because A literally meets the definition of B is not a fallacy and is indeed exactly how definitions work.

@reirab The mere fact that the government provides a good or service, whether state, local, federal, planetary, interstellar, or intergalactic provides a good or service does not automatically make the provision of said good or service "socialist." If private providers are allowed to exist then it's not socialist.

@Joe That is incorrect. Government ownership of means of production - even if other means of production in the same industry are still allowed to exist - is still socialism.

@Chloe I'm sympathetic to everything you wrote, but labeling public provision of goods and services as "socialism" is exactly how the kids these days don't know what socialism is and think it's a cuddly form of taking care of people instead of an economic system that fails horribly every time it's been tried.

@reirab I'm pretty sure that national defense, law enforcement and the judicial system are public goods that are provided by the government, but do not qualify as socialism except to pedantic robots and people trying to make socialism sound normal

@reirab wrong. There's a difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Your failure to understand my point does not make my argument fallacious.

@dunk as soon as you start saying "liberals always blah blah" or "all liberals blah blah" you're automatically removing any possibility of having a rational discussion. You clearly believe that all liberals are dishonest, stupid, or insane, just as extremist liberals believe all conservatives are dishonest, stupid, or insane. This is why we can't have nice discussions.

@Joe interestingly, you and I are making the same point, from opposite sides. Funny how sometimes people actually can agree about something even if they don't agree about another thing. It's almost like humans are not divided into two black-and-white camps of good and evil.

@barbecue-You are correct. I should have refined that statement to say 'Many liberals on this exchange site seem to be in collusion to heavily downvote....'. Is it not of any relevance that the 3 posts with the lowest number of votes are the only posts that actually answers the question that was asked?

@Battle: actually, it's completely the opposite. A completely wrong answer because it grabs a definition of "producing goods" and only brings up examples of healthcare and education which definitely don't belong there. Also, being free doesn't mean it's run by any goverment, only that is is somehow financed for those who get it for free. Bernie Sanders may be a socialist by some definitions of the term (US ones, not the universally accepted, scientific definitions) but even then, certainly not because of the flawed reasoning of this answer.

@Dunk - Small hint, when you respond in comments, make sure to leave a space after the name. @Battle-[...] does not trigger a notification, @Battle - [...] however does!

@Gábor - The definition is wonky, but it's one of the commonly used definitions. For example it never accounted for services, even though that was likely implied as well. It's technically not even reasonable to only mean "products" - there are plenty of product-service combinations, like building a house. Healthcare and education are both services. being free doesn't mean it's run by any goverment - If it is paid by taxes, it is inevitably run by some form of government - technically. It's free for you because others pay for it.

@Gábor - 2. US ones, not the universally accepted, scientific definitions - Europe is way deep into neo-Marxism for decades already - socially and politically. I wouldn't rely on anything "scientific" derived from a so called intelligentsia which is overwhelmingly dominated by that ideology. It's just the badge of "science" slapped on an ideological belief system to make it appear objective, common sense, rational, virtuous, ethical. I'd gladly expand on all of it, to make a coherent point... but as I said, dissidence is severely hunted down here.

@Battle: any viable definition of (especially Marxist) socialism would include common ownership of the means of production, or, if we want to do away with this phraseology, simply put, state ownership as a dominant form of ownership in the economy. It's very clear that, fortunately, none of the current European democracies, neither Western Europe, nor the former Soviet Block, not even countries like Sweden fulfill this criterion; quite the opposite, of course. And I don't even know of any mainstream social democratic party in Europe that would advocate it.

@Battle: as to the neo-Marxist, cultural Marxist and similar labels, don't even bother with it; I consider them very poor attempts at stigmatization, at best. No real meaning whatsoever.

@Gábor - Wikipedia: Neo-Marxism. Wilful ignorance is not a virtue, bátyám. There is way more to read up on it. state ownership as a dominant form of ownership in the economy - If the state is exerting direct ownership and/or massive control via regulations, that part of the economy is dominantly owned by the state already. Competition (new ideas, new methodologies) is already impossible or close to it. Such domains are especially healthcare and education, but also public transportation, finance system, infrastructure, arms market.

@Gábor - Also: The question is not if socialism is 100% achieved - it's sufficient to see the direction of political agendas. It's a step by step situation, and there will be one step which would cross the line of a definition, and we wouldn't know when exactly. It's a gradual process. Social Democracy doesn't aim at communism, but it brings a society much closer to it, and gives rise to other socialist parties who may want to get even more close. The property of being "socialist" and fulfilling the definition(s) is not a Boolean, it's a float value between 0 and 100%.

@Battle: I never said neo-Marxism didn't exist, only that it's used without knowing its real meaning, simply as stigmatization. Everything exists, no matter how hard it is to believe, even Communists exist (and not in the US sense but actual ones). But that doesn't mean the overall situation in Europe has anything to do with either.

@Gábor - Why do you believe those who use it do it without knowing its real meaning? What if they know enough about it? Do you assume that understanding equates agreement? That's a major fallacy of thought. How about people oppose certain ideologies and views exactly because they understand them - or rather their true nature? I for one was a leftist, a socialist - until I understood it. Now I am aligned with people who once I dismissed as egoistic, careless, malevolent and dumb. Would you assume my political-ideological understanding dropped as I matured?

@Battle: it's not about personal convictions. If we speak about that, I never was, in all my adult life I have been a fervent supporter of capitalism and the least government intrusion possible (although I do accept that, much like a highway code, some regulation is unavoidable for the benefit of the whole society). Still I don't think the current Europe is really directed towards socialism and I most definitely don't buy into the alrightish nonsense about cultural Marxists taking over the world or the EU or whatever. Marxism has been relegated to the back seat and it stays so.