You seem to have a pretty narrow definition of socialism. I think most people would not use the term as narrow as you do no matter what quoted text you are about to post in response.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh? Share yours then so we can compare.

[–] Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From simple Wikipedia: "Socialism is a political ideology that aims to make people equal. It generally focuses on equality of wealth (eg. similar wages, housing, education, healthcare), although since the 1960s, it has often focused on equality of power. It is normally considered left-wing, because it seeks to change society."

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

??? You seem to have not only weird definition of socialism, because it's totally not it, but even different wikipedia. Here's what it says, in the very beginning (your definition is nowhere there):

Social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. Which is basically as broad definition as possible, everything left of succdems fit right in.

For the lulz, i searched for your definition, and it had only a single result, here. Specifically, a comment down below:

Concluding, i guess it must be true, since the well known socialist theoretician BAD BOY BUBBY said so /s

[–] emerty@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Must of missed the whole market socialism thing in the Nordics and under Blair in the UK?

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

Market socialism examples are Yugoslavia and Poland in the 70's. Nordics have capitalism with (currently being cut) social safety nets, one of prime characteristics of socialdemocracy, ideology that do not promote socialism but capitalism with "human face", as Nomad said, based on Keynes work. Blair and his followers in many countries went much off even that into the neoliberalism.